Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

BILLS PRESENTED

EAST GREEN, ABERDEEN ORDER CONFIRMATION

Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to East Green, Aberdeen (to be proceeded with under section 9 of the Act), presented by Mr. William Ross (under Section 8 of the Act); read the First time, and ordered to be read a Second time upon Tuesday 15th July and to be printed. [Bill 188.]

FORTH PORTS AUTHORITY ORDER CONFIRMATION

Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to the Forth Ports Authority (to be proceeded with under section 9 of the Act), presented by Mr William Ross (under Section 8 of the Act); read the First time, and ordered to be read a Second time upon Tuesday 15th July and to be printed. [Bill 189.]

CLYDE PORT AUTHORITY ORDER CONFIRMATION

Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to the Clyde Port Authority (to be proceeded with under Section 9 of the Act), presented by Mr. William Ross (under Section 8 of the Act); read the First time, and ordered to be read a Second time upon Tuesday 15th July and to be printed. [Bill 190.]

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SERVICES

Unemployment Benefit

Mr. Fortescue: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he will now institute an inquiry into the increase in the cost of unemployment benefit in the last few years.

The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. David Ennals): The increased cost of unemployment benefit is a reflection of higher rates of benefit and a higher level of unemployment. I have no reason to think that other factors account for more than a fraction of the increase, but if there are any aspects on which the hon. Member feels that inquiry is called for I should be glad to consider them.

Mr. Fortescue: Has the Minister considered the desirability of tightening the administration of the payment of unemployment benefits, made on his behalf at employment exchanges, on the same lines as the tightening introduced by the previous Minister of Social Security for the payment of supplementary benefits to unemployed by officers of his Department?

Mr. Ennals: Officers of the Department of Employment and Productivity exercise a great deal of vigilance. Each exchange has an officer especially responsible for this, and there is a team of investigators, as I have previously told the hon. Gentleman. He will be interested to know that last year there were more than 700 successful prosecutions for unemployment benefit fraud compared with about 550 in the previous year.

Mr. Heffer: Will not my hon. Friend agree that the number of people involved in fraud is very tiny compared with the number genuinely receiving unemployment benefit? Is it not dangerous to develop the hon. Gentleman's argument in view of what used to happen in prewar years?

Mr. Ennals: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is a small proportion. In a total of about 500,000 unemployed, of


course some individuals will seek to exploit the scheme, but they are a small minority.

Mental Illness

Mr. Ashton: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the estimated cost in working man-hours lost for mental illness to the nation for the years 1966, 1967, 1968, and to the latest available date in 1969.

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the cost in sickness benefit paid to the mentally ill and the days of incapacity this reflected for the years 1966, 1967, 1968, and to the latest available date in 1969.

Mr. Ennals: I have information only about sickness which is notified for the purpose of claims under the National Insurance Acts and about the cost of benefit paid in the period June 1965 to June 1966. The estimated cost of sickness benefit for incapacity attributed to psychoneuroses and psychoses was about £24 million for 28 million days. In the period June 1966 to June 1967, the latest for which figures are available, the corresponding figures were about £25 million for 29 million days.

Mr. Ashton: Is not 28 million days about four or five times as many as the days lost through strikes? Will my right hon. Friend try to concentrate the attention of the public on the problems of mental health in the same way as it has been drawn to the problems of strikes?

Mr. Ennals: It certainly is true that sickness benefit, including this aspect of sickness, is much more significant numerically than the number of days lost by strikes. We are doing a great deal to concentrate the attention of the public on the problems of mental illness and mental disease as well as the facilities that are available for treatment and care.

Mr. Pavitt: Despite the increase, will my hon. Friend discuss with the Department of Employment and Productivity the great success that we have had in the last three years in industrial therapy compared with occupational therapy with a view to making sure that we can employ more people who are mentally ill in the community instead of paying them sickness benefit for days off?

Mr. Ennals: There are increasing facilities for those suffering from this disadvantage to have forms of protected employment. I will certainly have further discussions with the Department of Employment and Productivity to see whether we can go further. But I should point out that the increase to which I referred in my Answer is very marginal and is in line with the general increase in sickness benefit.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Can the hon. Gentleman say what proportion of the man hours lost was due to depression and what investigation his Department is making in the more extended use of anti-depressant drugs to reduce the period which people are away sick with this illness?

Mr. Ennals: With respect, that is a different question. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question on that matter.

Strikers (Social Security Payments)

Mr. Biffen: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what estimate he has made of social security payments that have been made during the current year to official and unofficial strikers, respectively, and to those rendered unemployed by strike action; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Norman Pentland): Strikers are not entitled to unemployment benefit, nor to supplementary benefit for their own requirements. In the 12 months to 31st May of this year, approximately £390,000 has been paid in supplementary benefit for the dependants of persons involved in official and unofficial strikes. The statistics kept do not distinguish between official and unofficial strikes; nor are figures available for unemployment benefit and supplementary benefit paid to persons not themselves on strike but unemployed as a result of strike action.

Mr. Biffen: Has the hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the speech by Mr. Ted Varley, the President of the National and Local Government Officers Association, in which he argued that social benefits should be withheld from wildcat strikers? Do not the views of this senior member of a respected trade


union deserve very careful consideration by the Department?

Mr. Pentland: That suggestion would impose greater hardship on the wives and children of strikers than was imposed even in the days of the old Poor Law. There is another issue also. In the case of the recent Leyland dispute, for example, a rough calculation suggests that the men lost upwards of £800,000 in wages and supplementary benefit payments totalled about £52,000. It would take a very great deal of overtime at the end of the dispute to make up for that shortfall.

Mr. Orme: Was not the Leyland dispute an official trade union dispute in which dispute benefit was paid by the union concerned? Can my hon. Friend say what proportion the £390,000 represents of the total payments of supplementary benefit?

Mr. Pentland: I am sorry that I cannot give the exact figures. It was, however, pointed out by the Donovan Report that it appeared that during the period 1962 to 1966 only about 8 per cent. of workers involved in stoppages lasting more than two weeks received supplementary benefit. Even in prolonged strikes lasting several weeks, the proportion of strikers claiming supplementary benefit is seldom more than 35 per cent.

Pensions

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what proposals 'he has to improve the pensions of those people who elect to continue working until after their 70th birthday.

Mr. Pentland: People who work and contribute during the five years following minimum pension age earn increments to the retirement pension they eventually receive. These were last increased in October, 1967, and the Government have no plans to make further improvements at present.

Mr. Mitchell: Would my hon. Friend not agree that the rewards for someone who wishes to work these five years and forgo the pension during that period are completely inadequate in the present pension structure?

Mr. Pentland: No, Sir. There has been little connection between the timing of the new increase in benefit rates and the

increase in increment rates. The two coincided only in 1951 and 1967. In 1959 the increment increase was made independently of other benefit changes.

Mr. Dean: Does the hon. Gentleman recollect that selective employment tax is being increased by 28 per cent. today? Would not the best incentive for the over-seventies be to ensure that they do not have to pay it, or that their employers do not?

Mr. Pentland: That is a question not for me but for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

National Insurance (Exchequer Contributions)

Sir B. Rhys Williams: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will set an upper limit to the total amount of the Exchequer contributions to the National Insurance Fund in his proposals to reform national superannuation and social security.

Mr. Ennals: No, Sir.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: So there is to be no upper limit to the amount which the taxpayer has to pay into National Insurance? Now that the Ministry has put the contribution on a graduated basis, what is the justification for keeping the taxation element in this system at all?

Mr. Ennals: There will be no upper limit set, but the intention is, in the up-rating Bill at present in Committee, to retain the Exchequer contribution at roughly the same proportion as it has been for a number of years. Equally, the intention in the new long-term scheme for national superannuation is to keep the proportion roughly the same—at 18 per cent.—as part of the contribution towards the redistributive element within the new scheme.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Would my hon. Friend not agree that there is a strong case for not decreasing but increasing the amount of contribution?

Mr. Ennals: One would not want to increase it too high, because this is, after all, a contributory scheme. It is important that the contributory element should be maintained so that there is some relationship between the benefit which people receive and the contributions which they have paid.

State Pension Schemes (Contracting Out)

Sir B. Rhys Williams: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will take steps to prevent a reduction in the proportion of employed people contracted out of the State graduated pension schemes following Her Majesty's Government's decision no longer to adhere to the existing basis for relating benefits to contributions for those contracted in.

Mr. Ennals: No, Sir. Employers, in consultation with their employees, will continue to have a free choice in this matter.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: So the Minister does not mind if the contracted out section declines dramatically?

Mr. Ennals: It is, as I said, entirely for the employers to decide. There is no evidence that there will be any substantial increase either in the contracted out element or in the number of those who remain contracted in.

Lord Balniel: Is it the objective of the Department, then, to increase the number of persons contracted out, to reduce it, or to keep it exactly the same as under the Boyd-Carpenter scheme?

Mr. Ennals: The intention is that there should be opportunities for occupational pension schemes to maintain their position and to expand, but, at the same time, we want properly to protect the finances of the State scheme.

Retirement Pensions (Reduction)

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has considered the case submitted to him by the hon. Member for South Bedfordshire concerning a pension reduced by 6d., due to the introduction of reduced bus fares in Luton; and if he will take steps to prevent pension reductions of this type.

Mr. Pentland: The reduction of retirement pension starts when earnings reach a level which is not wholly compatible with retirement, and in assessing earnings the independent statutory authorities which determine these questions can only take into account actual expenses. This pensioner and his wife are no worse off

and can still gain from the concessionary fares other than when travelling to and from work. The income from pension and earnings of a retired married couple can amount to £13 16s. before the pension is affected, a figure which will rise to £15 12s. in November.

Mr. Roberts: Does my hon. Friend not appreciate that this type of absurdity creates an unnecessary Scrooge-like impression of social security? Would he and the Government agree that there is here, perhaps, a case for some rigid minima and more flexible maxima in the payment of social security benefits?

Mr. Pentland: No, Sir. As I said, the statutory authorities can take into account only the actual expenses involved. My hon. Friend will know that the new arrangements in the Bill now before Parliament will raise the level of earnings at which the rule begins to operate from £6 10s. to £7 10s. The pensioner who is the subject of this Question will then be outside the scope of the rule.

Social Security Benefit (Sick Housewives)

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will take steps to enable men to draw Social Security benefit for themselves and their families when they have to stay off work due to the illness of the wife; what is the estimated cost of such a provision; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Pentland: Where there is no alternative to the man's staying at home, supplementary benefit can be paid to meet the requirements both of himself and his family. The estimated yearly cost of such payments is of the order of £¾ million.

Mr. Roberts: Although we are aware that the man will obtain a supplementary benefit, is it not time either that the sickness of the wife should be accounted as ordinary sickness in these terms or, much more progressively, that the rôle of housewife should be recognised in social security contribution terms, and that she should therefore be given a proper status as a worker in society?

Mr. Pentland: No, Sir. That would mean a complete change in the national insurance scheme. My hon. Friend will


know that National Insurance benefits are to compensate for earnings lost through incapacity for work, unemployment or old age. Provision for other contingencies such as the one he mentioned is made through the supplementary benefits scheme.

Mr. Fortescue: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are well-documented cases of doctors giving sickness notes to husbands when their wives are sick to enable them to draw sickness benefit while staying at home to look after the children?

Mr. Pentland: If the hon. Gentleman would draw our attention to these cases, we should certainly look into them for him.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITALS

Oral Contraceptives

Mr. Fortescue: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will take steps to ensure that oral contraceptives issued by the Family Planning Association are provided only under qualified medical supervision.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Richard Crossman): Rule 31(2) of the Poisons (No. 2) Rules 1968 already provides that oral contraceptives must not be supplied from a family planning clinic except on and in accordance with a prescription given by a duly qualified medical practitioner.

Mr. Fortescue: Is the Secretary of State aware that at some clinics the Family Planning Association, for the work of which in general I have the utmost respect, issues oral contraceptives to women returning for a second six months' supply without the women having been seen or examined by a doctor? In view of the potential danger of some of these drugs, will he take steps to investigate this situation?

Mr. Crossman: What the hon. Gentleman has said is news to me. I was aware that from time to time they were issued by non-medical members of the team, but I gathered that that was mainly because some women could not afford to pay for them all at one go and came back for some afterwards. I do not believe that they are issued other than

under strict medical directive, as is prescribed. However, if the hon. Gentleman has any evidence to the contrary, I hope he will bring it to me.

Mr. Pavitt: Can my right hon. Friend say why non-oral contraceptive devices are free of charge whereas teeth and spectacles have to be paid for?

Mr. Crossman: I suspect that that question is rather different from that which I have just answered.

Abortion Operations (Private Nursing Homes)

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many of the private nursing homes relicensed at the end of April for the termination of pregnancy operation for two months only have now been reexamined and found to be up to standard and given a new licence accordingly.

Mr. Crossman: Approval of the Lang-ham Street Clinic; The Avenue Clinic, St. John's Wood; St. Mary's Nursing Home, Hendon; and the Old Court Clinic, Ealing, has been renewed until 27th April, 1970. Approval of the West Hampstead (Private) Clinic and the Heywood Clinic, Stanmore, has been given for six and two months respectively. Further approval will depend on satisfactory completion of structural work now in progress at these two establishments.
Approval of the Lady Margaret Nursing Home, Ealing, has also been given for two months only, pending the completion of inquiries following the coroner's inquest into a recent death at the home and subject to improvements in record keeping.

Mrs. Short: Presumably, my right hon. Friend is satisfied that all the homes that have now been approved are up to standard and capable of meeting an obvious need. Will he bear in mind that many of the rumours of charter flights from abroad and the pressure from abroad on these facilities are propaganda being used by opponents of the Act who want to press him and the House into taking certain action? Nevertheless, will he keep a close eye on all these establishments and, if he feels that there are any abuses, take a tough line with those responsible?

Mr. Crossman: I have taken an extremely tough line. I must make it clear to my hon. Friend that my job is to see that the establishments are properly kept and that I am not concerned with what a doctor does inside an establishment, which is not my responsibility. I realise that these establishments are not always normal nursing homes and that especially strict conditions must be imposed when large numbers of operations occur in a single place.
As for people coming from abroad, over the weekend I have written to each of these nursing homes asking for immediate information about whether this is true. I have had only one answer. This is from the nursing home at Stan-more, which say that it knows nothing about it. I would take a grave view if any of these rumours were true, but I agree with my hon. Friend that that is not very likely. I have no evidence of this kind of mass immigration. Indeed, the figures of notifications which I gave for one quarter of the year seemed to indicate the actual proportion of the number arriving from abroad.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Is it not a little optimistic of the Secretary of State to think that those who are operating rackets will give accurate replies to his letter? In the circumstances of great public alarm and high public controversy, would not the best solution be for the Minister to appoint an impartial committee representing all points of view to investigate what is going on?

Mr. Crossman: It is a lot to suggest, when asking about a particular fact, that the responsible people running the nursing homes will tell me lies. It is important to observe that the operating doctors are required by the Act to notify each case in detail to my medical officers. I have watched this carefully, and it would be extremely serious if they did not notify in detail. So it would be wrong to assume that if they all denied that it was true it was not merely an exaggerated story. As for the idea that we need further investigation, I do not think that that is true. We really need a sense of proportion, and people should not write and publish with enormous emphasis stories based upon such a small amount of fact as I thought these stories were.

Mr. William Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will resist all attempts to amend the existing legislation along the lines suggested by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), because, clearly, the facts have not yet been established, other than the scaremongering which has appeared in the Press?

Mr. Crossman: The legislative intentions of the hon. Gentleman he will perhaps disclose to me later, and we shall judge them on their merits. However, it would be most unwise to amend the Act yet. I have no reason to believe that the Act is not working well throughout the Health Service. There are minor difficulties which can be remedied. In a very small segment of the private sector concentrated in London, over which I have no control, things are taking place of which I do not approve and neither does the medical profession. But they do not prove that the Act needs amending.

Mr. David Steel: Will the right hon. Gentleman remind hon. Members that those who use extravagant phrases like London being "the abortion capital of the world" cannot be surprised if some foreigners then take them at their word?

Mr. Crossman: That is a fair point. If things are taking place inside these homes which conflict with the spirit of the law, it is not for me to deal with the doctor's conscience. It is for the doctor himself and for the medical profession's own disciplinary authorities. This is a very small group of doctors. It would be extremely grave if such a small group were to discredit what I think is a considerable reform.

Abortion Operations (Facilities)

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has now made an assessment, in the light of the representations submitted to him, of the need for increased facilities under the National Health Service for the termination of pregnancies under the Abortion Act; and what action he intends to take to meet this need.

Mr. Crossman: It is still too soon to form an assessment of the adequacy or otherwise of National Health Service facilities. I am continuing to watch the position.

Mrs. Short: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind, in view of the large number of case notes which I sent him recently, that it is clear that in some parts of the country gynaecologists within the National Health Service are not carrying out their duties under the Act and are abusing the conscience Clause of that Act?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Nonsense.

Mrs. Short: It is not nonsense if a woman dies because she has not been examined by a consultant gynaecologist. As 27 homes for unmarried mothers have been closed down recently, will my right hon. Friend consider using some of them as units for carrying out terminations of pregnancies in these certain areas, so that at least the advantages of the Act can be given to all women who are in need of them?

Mr. Crossman: I would not wholly agree with the first part of my hon. Friend's question. The Act made it clear that we rely on the conscience of the doctor. We knew that there would be a wide variety of conscience between one doctor and another. That was an inevitable drawback of an Act of this kind, and I do not blame doctors whose consciences differ from my own. But doctors who interpret their conscience in such a way as virtually to refuse the operation in almost any circumstances merely drive women to go to the private segment in London, and that does not do anyone any good.

Lord Balniel: Does not the hon. Lady's original Question—but not her supplementary question—pinpoint the problem? Is not a basic feature of the problem that many women who in the past had abortions in deplorably dangerous conditions now have abortions perfectly legally? As this was the foreseeable result and purpose of the Act, why did not the Government provide for an expansion of the gynaecological services in the National Health Service? Why leave the emphasis on the private clinics?

Mr. Crossman: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that if we had done so at an even pace over the whole country the result would be a great deal of empty space in Birmingham and Liverpool. These are the areas where there has been no substantial increase because of the

views of the doctors. We had to wait to see what happened. Nor do I believe that there is much evidence in the Health Service of undue pressure. The pressure is all within the small private sector which already takes 40 per cent., against 60 per cent. for the Health Service.

Dr. Summerskill: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the way to relieve pressure from the private sector is by expanding facilities within the Health Service. As he said, Birmingham is an example of a place where there is this lack of Health Service facilities. What is his view on the setting up of the proposed abortion clinic in Birmingham?

Mr. Crossman: I am prepared to consider that. That was the second point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) about whether we should ourselves establish small abortion clinics in these disused buildings. I am reluctant to do that. That is why I think that we had better wait to see how it is going, because we hope to even it out between the various regions. But it would have been no good increasing accommodation in Birmingham. The problem as between Birmingham and Newcastle is the interpretation of the Act by the rival consultants.

Dame Irene Ward: Would it not help the right hon. Gentleman, and, indeed, all those who are interested and anxious about the Act, if he were to set up an independent committee to which all doctors and all those interested in the matter could put their points of view? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that he is in a position to wait and then say he cannot do this and cannot do that because he has not got the evidence? Lots of people would be willing to help him put these matters straight.

Mr. Crossman: Each of us has to weigh the time for a new investigation. There have been endless investigations in the past. Now action has been taken and the Bill has become an Act of Parliament. I want to give that Act reasonable time to settle down before more investigation is carried out. I think it really would be unwise to importune for further investigation, because that is not required at present.

Mental Illness

Mr. Moonman: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services in view of the fact that environmental conditions influence mental breakdowns, in particular relapses, what plans he has for special resources to be applied to the depressed areas.

Mr. Hamling: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will seek to provide special financial help for those areas with greatly above average incidence of mental illness.

Mr. Crossman: As my hon. Friends know, rate support grant is distributed by reference to factors which reflect the needs and resources of different areas. In addition, grants can now be made to local authorities under the urban programme towards approved expenditure in urban areas of special social needs.

Mr. Moonman: Recent figures show that East London has a higher national average of mental sickness. Has my right hon. Friend considered certain studies in other distressed areas in large cities like Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham and Glasgow?

Mr. Crossman: Yes. A lot of research and investigation is going on. I should again point out that the urban programme gives us power to concentrate on black spots.

Mr. Dean: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that on 27th March he said that there would be a reallocation of resources for mental health services? Can he say what results have been achieved?

Mr. Crossman: I said that it was not only for mental health but mainly for long-stay hospitals and hospitals for the mentally subnormal. I am meeting the regional hospital board chairmen. I gave them until their July meeting. I said that I would meet them then and see what they had achieved in this period. That meeting will take place in the near future.

Hospital Service (Public Relations)

Mr. Dobson: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will take steps to encourage hospital management committees to admit the Press to their meetings.

Mr. Crossman: I am considering how public relations in the hospital service can be further improved. Clearly, access to meetings is one of the best means. I must, however, leave this to the discretion of the hospital management committees as they sometimes have to discuss matters concerning individual patients and staff which ought not to be made public.

Mr. Dobson: I thank my right hon. Friend for the tone of his reply. But does he accept that in many cases hospital management committees could admit the Press to a lot more of their meetings than they obviously plan to do at the moment? Will he, therefore, make further inquiries to improve the position with the object of having the public more involved in these vital community decisions?

Mr. Crossman: Yes. I am certainly prepared to consider this. One thing I am already actively discussing—not with the hospital management committees direct—with the regional hospital boards is the meetings of hospital management committees at a time when a different kind of public can attend, both as members and as the general public, which seems almost as important.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that hospital management committees do not take important decisions? This Question ought really to have referred to the regional hospital boards, which are extremely poor in their Press relations. What steps will the right hon. Gentleman take, on the lines of his recent statement, to make sure that the regional hospital boards give proper information to members of the public and the staff of the hospitals?

Mr. Crossman: I think that both are important. The hospital management committee is much more concerned with the problem of the individual patient, and that is not unimportant to the public. As for capital investment and balance and closures, this comes at the higher level, and public relations are equally important. I have not advised that merely appointing hundreds of public relations officers would do the job. We need people on those boards who really feel that keeping in contact with the grass roots of the community is important, which is not so in all cases today.

Mental Illness (Research)

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what increased expenditure he is proposing for 1969–70 on research into the causes and treatment of mental illnesses.

Mr. Crossman: My Department's programme for 1969–70 is still under consideration, but the expenditure this year on research projects already approved into mental illness, mental subnormality and addiction amounts to about £120,000. In addition, £100,000 is being contributed towards the cost of experimental forms of service. These amounts are respectively about one-third and one-sixth higher than in 1968–69.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: As half the beds in hospitals are occupied by the mentally ill, despite the efforts of the Mental Health Research Fund and other voluntary organisations, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that these sums, direct or through the Medical Research Council, are inadequate to meet the problem?

Mr. Crossman: It is true that in this area we need more research and, I should add, more concentration of medical talent. We shall not get the research unless it is thought that these are areas where ambitious and vigorous men can make good as doctors. I am trying to combine making them attractive to medical superintendents, on the one side, and doing research on the other. Research has to extend into community services, because I want to stop institutionalisation and get people out of hospitals, not into them.

Psycopathic Patients (Special Facilities)

Mrs. Knight: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans there now are for the provision of special facilities for the treatment of psychopathic patients; whether he is satisfied with this provision; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Booth: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services by what means the growing problem of the psychopathic patient is being dealt with; what steps are being taken to improve the facilities

available for the treatment of such patients; and if he will give details of the facilities to deal with this.

Mr. Crossman: The term "psychopathic" covers a wide range of behaviour disorders, some of which may respond to medical treatment or to social training. There are differences of opinion among psychiatrists on methods of treatment, and, indeed, on whether any treatment is effective. Special facilities on a substantial scale can be developed only as medical knowledge increases. Regional hospital boards have been asked to try different approaches to treatment.

Mrs. Knight: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that reply is inadequate in the extreme? Is he satisfied that the pressures recently applied, particularly for psychopaths who have received a prison sentence and are not receiving sufficient care, are being considered in a sympathetic light?

Mr. Crossman: I think it is important for the hon. Lady to realise that what I said was true. If I had given a much more euphoric reply, I should not have been reflecting the truth. The truth is that these patients are in a way the most difficult. They are the ones left over when all other treatments have failed. It is no good my saying that we know the way to handle them. What I said, quite rightly, was that we cannot invest large sums of money for further treatment until research justifies the development of this treatment.

Mrs. Ewing: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possible usefulness of a study into whether nursery school education would be of service in trying to moderate, or even cure, psychopathic behaviour? There may be some usefulness in the maxim of catching a psychopath early enough. I have had evidence of this in my constituency. Will the right hon. Gentleman look at this problem seriously?

Mr. Crossman: There is a good deal of evidence on this. One of the few bits of firm evidence is that psychopathic abnormality often relates to very early happenings in a child's life. To that extent I agree with the hon. Lady.

Adolescent Psychiatric Patients

Mr. Lubbock: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many special units there now are for the treatment of adolescents with psychiatric problems; whether he is satisfied with this provision; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Christopher Price: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on his plans to improve adolescent psychiatric facilities.

Mr. Crossman: There are fourteen special units in England. About 30 more are planned, of which five are due to open in the next 12 months. Guidance was given to hospital authorities in 1964 about the provision of such units, and boards are fully aware of their advantages.

Mr. Lubbock: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that his predecessor, the Minister of Health, told the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Roy Hughes) over a year ago that there were thirteen such units? His answer implies that only one has been opened in the last year. As the right hon. Gentleman has said that 30 to 35 more are required, is he satisfied with this rate of progress, and what steps is he taking to speed things up?

Mr. Crossman: I am not satisfied with the rate of progress, because I regard the treatment of adolescents with psychiatric problems as tremendously important. We have 30 units planned, of which five are due to open in the next 12 months, which I think might improve the average.

Mr. Price: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is most unsatisfactory for young adolescents with these problems to be mixed up with older folk, often with different problems? Can he give us any idea of the progress being made? Can he give us the percentages at the moment of all the adolescent people with psychiatric problems, of those in special units, and of those in general units?

Mr. Crossman: I could if my hon. Friend were to put down a Question. I have not the information here, but I can give the extent of the provision. The 14 existing units provide only 290 beds.

Those due to open in the next 12 months will give us another 110. Those planned will give us another 600. But I must warn the House that these are relatively small figures compared with the total demand.

Lord Balniel: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that the shortage of inpatient facilities for psychiatrically disturbed adolescents is probably one of the greatest weaknesses of the whole of the psychiatric services? As this is always going to be a low priority in each regional board area because the numbers are small, will he consider grouping together the regional boards so that at least in various groups of regional hospital boards such facilities will be provided?

Mr. Crossman: I should like to think about that before replying. I should not think that the grouping of boards was the answer, but I shall consider it.

Mental Hospitals (Patients)

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many patients were admitted to mental illness hospitals in 1958–59 and 1968–69; respectively; how many new outpatients and day patients were seen; how many in-patients there were and what proportion was compulsorily detained; what was the average length of stay of those discharged; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Crossman: I will, with permission, circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT. These figures reflect changes in methods of treatment. They include patients treated in psychiatric departments of general hospitals. Instead of long-term in-patient care, hospitals are increasingly providing shorter periods of active treatment to in-patients, and making greater use of out-patient and day-patient treatment.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Does the right Gentleman agree that that probably shows that although more individuals have gone into hospital they have been got out rather more quickly than in the past? Does not that show the need for increased research?

Mr. Crossman: No doubt we ought to have more research, but I am more


concerned with getting the facilities right, and I am sure that the right thing is to move to facilities in acute district hospitals and to reduce long-stay patients. We can claim that the figure dropped from 103,000 at the end of 1958 to 79,000 at the end of 1968. That was a substantial decrease, but readmissions increased in that time from 44,000 to 83,000. So there we have the good with the bad. If we reduce the long-stay, we increase the risk of people coming back. I still think that it is better to come back and then go home again, rather than be there for life.

Following are the figures:



1958
1968


Admissions including readmissions)
94,000
172,000


New Patients (Out-Patients)
152,000
226,000


New Day Patients
A few Thousand
19,000


In-patients resident at end of the year
142,000
120,000


Detained Patients
55 per cent.
7 per cent.


Median length of stay of those discharged
51 days
33 days

Drug Addicts

Mr. Lubbock: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many patients categorised as being treated as drug addicts were patients in all types of hospitals on 1st January, 1969, 1st January, 1964, 1st January, 1960, and 1st January, 1958; and what were the number of new out-patient attendances of people categorised as drug addicts during these same years.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Julian Snow): On 31st December, 1963, there were 97 patients in mental illness hospitals and units with a primary diagnosis of drug addiction. On 31st December, 1967, there were 78 heroin addicts as in-patients and 104 on 31st December, 1968. 391 heroin addicts attended clinics as new out-patients in the six months July to December, 1967, and 1,999 in the year 1968.

Mr. Lubbock: Are not these figures alarming as showing the rate of growth of addiction over these years? Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the facilities provided in the new out-patient centres are adequate to cope with the problem? What plans has he, apart

from extending the scope of these outpatient departments, to deal with the amphetamines, which are a serious and growing problem?

Mr. Snow: As the hon. Member knows, the particular problem of amphetamine addiction is being considered by the advisory committee. As we are now beginning to obtain quite a lot of information about the pattern of addiction, I propose, Mr. Speaker, with your permission and that of the House, to publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT a small resumé of information in which we think that the House might be interested.

Mr. John Lee: Does that include information about the cases of people who started on so-called soft drugs and moved on to hard drugs? This is the point which is of considerable interest to us.

Mr. Snow: I am not certain that our information is yet firm enough to publish in Parliamentary form, but I take the point made by my hon. Friend. It is a most important matter, and I shall consider his question today and see what we can provided in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions — HEALTH

Dental Health Education

Mr. Hunt: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the estimated expenditure on dental health education for the current year.

Mr. Snow: The primary responsibility for dental health education lies with local authorities, and no information about their expenditure is available centrally. The Health Education Council's approved estimates provide for expenditure of £7,600 on dental health education in 1969–70.

Mr. Hunt: In view of the fact that we are currently spending about £100 million on the dental service, is not that a woefully inadequate allocation? Will not the hon. Gentleman agree that the more money spent on dental health education now, the more we shall help minimise the cost of the National Health Service in the years to come?

Mr. Snow: That may be true, and I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman says. Perhaps he will lend


his authority and influence to encouraging local authorities to adopt the general principle of fluoridation to encourage better health in the teeth of young children.

Dental Facilities (Health Centres)

Mr. Hunt: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will define his policy regarding the provision of dental facilities in health centres.

Mr. Snow: We are anxious that the necessary facilities should be available for dentists who wish to practise at health centres.

Mr. Hunt: Would the hon. Gentleman at least agree that it would be better not to sanction the provision of dental facilities at health centres at public expense in those areas where, clearly, there is already an adequate supply of ordinary dental practitioners?

Mr. Snow: It is up to the dental practitioner engaged in the public service, if he thinks that he might do his work more efficiently from a health centre for the greater convenience of his patients, to make use of such facilities as there are in the health centre. I am talking of services under the National Health Service.

Geriatric Services

Mr. Howie: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he is taking to increase facilities for the domiciliary care of geriatric patients.

Mr. Snow: Domiciliary care for elderly people is the responsibility of local health and welfare authorities, who are aware of the needs. All the relevant services have expanded substantially in recent years.

Mr. Howie: Since my right hon. Friend a moment ago said that he was anxious to get people out of hospitals rather than into them, would it not be better if the Government were to apply their energies towards that end more vigorously than seems apparent from that reply?

Mr. Snow: We have by no means reached perfection in the matter. But in home nursing, home help, health visiting, meals, chiropody and the provision of certain nursing equipment, there have been substantial improvements in recent years.

Mr. Fortescue: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what progress has been made with schemes for building flats for old people in the grounds of former cottage hospitals now falling into disuse, so that domiciliary care can be combined with the medical and nursing care available at those hospitals?

Mr. Snow: This has received the attention of an advisory committee established by my right hon. Friend. We are urgently examining standards, and the financial provision which those standards might imply.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Can the hon. Gentleman give the House any information about the extent to which the new powers in the Health Services and Public Health Act are being used by local authorities, particularly with regard to the provision of laundry facilities for people living at home?

Mr. Snow: No date of operation of the Act has been decided so far as those provisions are concerned.

Mr. Moonman: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on his plans to improve the geriatric services.

Mr. Crossman: The plans of hospital authorities envisage an increase of bed numbers in areas of local shortage and to meet the needs of an expanding population. Primary objectives are more efficient assessment, greater emphasis on rehabilitation and on out-patient and day patient treatment, and improved conditions for those who must remain in hospital as long-stay patients.

Mr. Moonman: Now that the stigma of mental health treatment has been largely removed, would not my right hon. Friend agree that the extreme ends of the service, such as the adolescents, to whom he referred a short while ago, and, indeed, the geriatric service, are perhaps the most vulnerable? Will he, therefore, ensure that his resources are directed to these two vulnerable sectors?

Mr. Crossman: I would add that the aim once again must be to see the fewest number of people in hospital, and for only a short time rather than long stay, and then to go for out-patient services and day hospitals for what is, I think, the greatest way of raising the self-esteem and the morale of these people.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Can the right hon. Gentleman say to what extent his reconsideration of the rôle of the small hospitals is valid in this context?

Mr. Crossman: I have now received a most interesting report on the future of the district hospital and the relation between the big hospital and the small hospital, and I hope in due course to be able to make a statement to the House on it. It is a complicated question. Certainly, the arguments are not all on the side of the big hospital.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a new geriatric unit at Luton and Dunstable Hospital with 80 beds which has been awaiting opening for some weeks because of a shortage of cleaners? Will he consider what advice can be given at ministerial level on this serious matter?

Mr. Crossman: I would advise my hon. Friend to put down a separate Question.

Community Care Services

Mr. Dobson: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services, in view of the varying amounts of money spent by local authorities on community care services, whether he will set up an operational research programme to evaluate in depth those services provided.

Mr. Snow: My Department already supports a substantial programme of operational research in the health and welfare services.

Mr. Dobson: Would my hon. Friend agree that there is not much sign locally of co-ordination between neighbouring units in this matter? Is he satisfied with the amount of coverage given to operational research in the sector of which he is speaking, because I fear that there is not much of it coming out locally?

Mr. Snow: The total cost of projects sponsored by my Department and currently in progress concerned with the evaluation of local authority community care is approximately £390,000. Of this total, £160,000 is for studies of services for the mentally ill and subnormal. If my hon. Friend has a particular area in which he thinks that there is a shortcoming of services within the expenditure

which I have mentioned, perhaps he will let me know.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the Under-Secretary aware that these services can be effectively provided only if there is proper co-ordination? Is he aware that some local authorities are reorganising their personal social services in a manner which conflicts with the recommendations of the Seebohm Report? When will the Secretary of State be in a position to make a statement on this matter?

Mr. Snow: My right hon. Friend is well aware of that activity by certain local authorities. We are considering the matter.

Mental Welfare Officers

Mrs. Knight: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what estimate he has made of the appropriate ratio of mental welfare officers per thousand population.

Mr. Snow: The ratio of mental welfare officers needed depends on many factors which vary from one area to another.

Mrs. Knight: Does the hon. Gentleman think that that reply answers the Question adequately? There are a number of reasons for concern in certain areas about the supply of mental welfare officers. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that concern exists?

Mr. Snow: I think it is a glimpse of the obvious to say that there is a variation in local demand. A ratio per thousand population in present-day conditions does not seem to be useful for comparative purposes, though local health authorities plan to provide an average of 0·05 mental health social workers per thousand population in 1975.

Mr. Moonman: I wonder whether my hon. Friend would, nevertheless, take us into his confidence about what he thinks is the right ratio. My hon. Friend indicated that there were local variations, but is not there also a policy within the Ministry to go beyond that? This is a creative thing, and not simply the rubber stamping of the activities of individual organisations.

Mr. Snow: We shall listen to what local authorities have to say in the light of their experience. We think that the


target I gave is a reasonable one, but we should like to watch events in this matter.

Psychiatry (Out-Patient Services)

Mr. Christopher Price: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what number of out-patients per psychiatrist he estimates to be the maximum for effective treatment; and how far the present out-patient services meet this need.

Mr. Snow: Methods vary and no fixed ratio is appropriate: there is no serious overall shortage of psychiatrists though more are needed in some areas.

Mr. Price: Does my hon. Friend consider that there are sufficient in the Birmingham area? Is he aware that I have had evidence that many psychiatrists in the Birmingham area seem to be very much overloaded with work in the outpatient department?

Mr. Snow: That is probably quite true in the Birmingham area. In other areas there seems to be some under-occupation. I should, however, add that at the end of September, 1968, there were 938 consultant psychiatrists and 442 registrars of mental illness and child psychiatry.

Mobile Coronary Care Units

Mr. Dudley Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether, in view of the fact that 40 per cent. of deaths from coronary attacks take place within the first hour, he will take steps to encourage the provision of mobile coronary care units in all major towns and cities.

Mr. Snow: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) of 2nd December.—[Vol. 774. c. 240.]

Mr. Smith: Is the Under-Secretary aware that a significant number of lives could be saved annually in our large towns and cities if expert help and equipment could reach the victims of coronary attack within a few minutes? As this disease is, unhappily, on the increase, should we not be a little more sophisticated in the way we try to tackle it?

Mr. Snow: That point of view is, to some extent, confirmed by experiences in the Belfast experiment. The programme

initiated by my Department will now go on for up to two years. We can then assess the value of these trials. The procedures are, of course, very expensive in terms of medical manpower, and there are other calls on the available manpower. I quite agree, however, with the hon. Member that it is a matter which needs to be carefully followed and that some results, if not all, are very interesting.

Adoption Regulations (Medical Examinations)

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will issue instructions that medical examinations required by the adoption regulations should be obtainable under the National Health Service.

Mr. Snow: General practitioners in the National Health Service are not permitted under their terms of service to make a charge for the medical examination of patients on their lists, but they are required to provide without charge only a limited range of medical certificates. A charge can be made for certificates required in connection with adoption. I am making further inquiries, and I will write to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Mitchell: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that under the adoption regulations a number of medical examinations have to be held—at least three and sometimes five—and that it is the current practice in many parts of the country to charge at least £3 3s. each for these examinations?

Mr. Snow: Yes, Sir; I was aware of that. The British Medical Association recommends to its members a scale of fees for private certificates, but, as I said, I am making further inquiries.

Drugs

Mr. Ogden: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he is satisfied with the efficacy of the fixed combination drugs albamycin T, cremostrep, ivax, orastrep, penicillin v sulpha, as used in the National Health Service; and what consultations he is having with the British pharmaceutical industry and


the British Medical Association in regard to their manufacture and use;
(2) if, in view of the fact that the United States Food and Drug Administration have banned certain fixed combination anti-biotic drugs, details of which have been supplied to him by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby, he will, in advance of the operations of the Medicines Commission, refer this matter to the Dunlop Committee and the McGregor Committee for their consideration.

Mr. Snow: The withdrawal of these products on grounds of safety has not been recommended by the Committee on Safety of Drugs. The Joint Committee on the Classification of Proprietary Preparations, one of whose major concerns is relative efficacy, has, however, classified four of them as products whose use it regards as open to question and will be considering the fifth shortly. My right hon. Friend has no further consultations in mind.

Mr. Ogden: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that I was not complaining about the safety of the drugs, but suggesting that this was a most inefficient, expensive and wasteful method of treatment? Could he put in the OFFICIAL REPORT the names of the four drugs to which he referred?

Mr. Snow: Yes, Sir.

Following is the information:

Cremostrep.
Ivax.
Orastrep.
Penicillin v sulpha.

National Health Service (Administrative Structure)

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) whether he will make a statement on the future administrative structure of the National Health Service in the light of the recommendations of the Royal Commission of Local Government;
(2) when he expects to publish the second Green Paper on the administrative structure of the National Health Service.

Mr. Crossman: I have as yet nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) on 16th June.—[Vol. 785, c. 19.]

Mr. Macmillan: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that he is giving the impression of having very little policy by realising his plans in such a piecemeal fashion? Can he not now give some date when he will be able to tell us his conclusions on the new Green Paper on the Seebohm Report and on the relations of the two to the Royal Commission's Report?

Mr. Crossman: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the Government—this is a Government decision—cannot come to any conclusion on any of those matters until there has been consultation with a large number of authorities. The consultations are just starting. I would not be unhopeful, however, that in the autumn the first preliminary statement could be made.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: In the light of this answer, would the right hon. Gentleman explain why local authorities are already being put under pressure to let the Government have their views of the Royal Commission's Report by October.

Mr. Crossman: For the precise reason that if there is to be a preliminary statement of Government policy in the autumn, it is vital to have the preliminary views of the local authorities by October.

Mr. English: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that in these consultations he will incline towards putting the Health Service under democratic control and not solely under the control of the medical profession?

Mr. Crossman: I think that I should be most unwise if I were tempted to indicate my personal inclinations in the matter.

Mental Illness (Local Expenditure)

Mr. Howie: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the local health expenditure on the mentally ill and on the mentally subnormal.

Mr. Snow: The net revenue expenditure of local health authorities in England and Wales on mental health services in


the year 1967–68 was £21·9 million; for the year 1968–69 it was estimated by local authorities that it would be £25·4 million. These figures include rather over £2 million each year as the apportioned element of general administration cost. In addition, loan sanctions for capital works totalling about £6 million were granted during the year 1967–68, and about £6·1 million during the year 1968–69.

Mr. Howie: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that that is an adequate proportion of local resources to devote to this important subject?

Mr. Snow: I think that we are getting near some acceptability in this proportion. In the last five years the revenue expenditure has doubled from about £12½million in 1964–65. Total Revenue expenditure over the last five years amounted to over £93 million compared with about £35 million in the previous five years.

NIGERIA

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement on the relief situation in Nigeria.
In the communiqué issued on 1st July after talks with the relief agencies, the Federal Government undertook to permit the transport of food, seeds, drugs and clothing to the rebel-held areas by air after due inspection in Lagos or at other inspection points in Federal areas that might be agreed.
The Federal Government maintained their ban on night flights, but reaffirmed their willingness to allow day flights. These would take place every day between the hours of 9 a.m. and 6 p.m.
This was accepted by all the relief representatives present, except for the representative of the International Committee of the Red Cross, who was unable to commit his organisation without instructions.
The Federal Government also made it clear that there was no question of expelling the Red Cross and that in taking over co-ordination of relief work within Federal territory the Government wished

to work out a scheme for the orderly transfer of responsibilities in consultation with the International Red Cross, the Nigerian Red Cross, the other relief agencies and the Nigerian Commission for Rehabilitation.
Two things are needed to make the Federal offer on daylight flights effective: the co-operation of the relief agencies, and acceptance by the rebel authorities. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State accordingly visited Geneva on 2nd July for urgent talks with the President and senior officials of the International Red Cross.
My hon. Friend made known to the International Red Cross our willingness to help and our strongly-held view that the future of relief operations should be worked out together by the I.C.R.C. and the Federal Government. He found full agreement on this point.
I myself saw Dr. Arikpo, the Nigerian Commissioner for External Affairs, on 5th July. He confirmed his Government's willingness to co-operate fully over the provision of relief by air, land or river, provided that reasonable arrangements are worked out first in the manner proposed.
Dr. Arikpo assured me that the Federal Government would agree to neutral observers at the inspection points in Federal territory as a guarantee against tampering with relief supplies and as an assurance that the inspection procedures would be speedy. He explained that the project for taking relief into the rebel area by the Cross River had not yet been agreed in detail.
We were able to arrange a meeting in London at the weekend between Dr. Arikpo and Professor Freymond, Vice-President of the International Committee of the Red Cross. Professor Freymond confirmed that the Red Cross would be willing to operate daylight flights as now proposed by the Federal Government subject to detailed agreement on guarantees of safety for Red Cross crews, aircraft and personnel.
The I.C.R.C. is sending a senior emissary to Lagos early this week for a continuation of the talks which were begun in London at the weekend. I greatly hope that these contacts mark a new beginning


in better relations of trust and co-operation between the Federal Government and the International Red Cross.
The position, therefore, is that the Nigerian Government are ready to let relief go through on conditions which are in themselves reasonable and are acceptable to the relief agencies at the Lagos Conference. Colonel Ojukwu's agreement is now vital. We are accordingly considering urgently with the Governments and relief organisations concerned how best to secure his agreement without delay so that the flow of relief may be resumed at the earliest possible moment.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: If the Red Cross is now willing to operate daylight flights and the Federal Government are agreeable to the neutral inspectors to ensure that no arms can be sent on these flights which are carrying food supplies, it looks as though it is more hopeful that we shall get emergency relief by air, which it is vital to get organised. I certainly hope that that is so.
We shall return to this matter on Thursday, so I will not proceed with it now except to say that we very much hope that these efforts are successful.

Mr. Stewart: I entirely accept what the right hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Wyatt: Is it not very generous of the Nigerian Government to allow these flights in view of the fact that international observers reported on 27th June that Biafran troops are being fed on rations supplied by charitable organisations? Is it not time that people stopped sniping at the Nigerian Government for simply trying to make sure that arms are not run in with relief supplies sent by the Red Cross and other organisations?

Mr. Stewart: We must accept that, in the whole history of warfare, any nation which has been in a position to starve its enemy out has done so. As far as I know, this is the first occasion on which a Government who were in a position to do so have said, "We are willing not to do so provided that there are conditions which ensure that our generosity is not exploited for military ends". That is one of the massive and solid facts in the whole situation.

Mr. Thorpe: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that there will be relief that the

Federal authorities have recognised that the Red Cross is an indispensable factor in relief operations? May I ask him two questions? First, without going into the merits of Colonel Ojukwu's objections, in view of his hitherto held objections to day flights, is it suggested that relief planes will or will not have Federal personnel aboard, because that seems to me an important factor?
Secondly, will the Foreign Secretary agree, whatever may be his reservations about the use of the word, that any side which now stands in the way of relief getting through with the knowledge that 3 million people stand the risk of starvation will be committing genocide?

Mr. Stewart: I think that that is true. As far as I know, the point about Federal personnel being aboard has never been suggested. It is not required by the Nigerian Government. They require merely to have an opportunity in their territory to see that relief planes are not abused, and they are ready to have neutral observers there to see that they do not waste time over the inspection. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that anyone who, in these circumstances, opposes the sending in of relief bears a dreadful responsibility.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the efforts which he has made to achieve this agreement will be very greatly appreciated in the country among all those who have tried to study this question impartially?

Mr. Stewart: I am obliged to my hon. and learned Friend. I believe that I can fairly claim that we have helped in bringing about better understanding between the Nigerian Government and the International Committee of the Red Cross. There has been an unhappy estrangement between them in the past. It will serve no purpose to go over all the reasons for it, but there is now prospect of much better relations.

Mr. Tilney: How many neutral observers are likely to be required? Is there any difficulty about the countries from which they are likely to come?

Mr. Stewart: In view of the Federal Government's statement on this matter, I do not think that there ought to be any difficulty about this.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Why did a Foreign Office spokesman say last night that agreement had been reached when today that was denied by the Red Cross in Geneva? Secondly, why did the Government ignore the offer of the Biafrans, subject to international supervision, to put forward something which I suspect they know is unacceptable—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Is it not clearly in the interests of the Biafran Government that food should get in to feed their own people?

Mr. Stewart: I covered the first question quite accurately in my statement. I said that Professor Freymond confirmed that the Red Cross would be willing to operate daylight flights as now proposed by the Federal Government. That is the measure of agreement and it is a very important measure. But, of course, there was no written agreement. I went on to say "subject to detailed agreement on guarantees of safety for Red Cross crews, aircraft and personnel".
The Red Cross is entirely entitled to point out that written agreement on these details has not yet been reached, but, in view of the whole tenor of the conversation between Professor Freymond and Doctor Arikpo, at which, by invitation, my hon. Friend and officials from my Department were present, I have no hesitation in saying that they were all of one mind on the real substance. I agree that complete and detailed agreement has still to be reached.
As to what is acceptable or unacceptable to Colonel Ojukwu, I should like to put the matter at its very simplest. If there were a relief plane in Lagos filled with food, drugs, seeds and clothing, but nothing else, and ready to go in to the rebel-held areas, neither the Nigerian Government nor, certainly, Her Majesty's Government would raise the slightest objection—indeed, we would welcome it. The only reason at present why it could not go in would be Colonel Ojukwu's objection. I hope most earnestly that, in the light of his responsibility for the people now under his control, he will reconsider this.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Would the Foreign Secretary explain why no pressure has been put on the Nigerian Government, as suggested by the United States Secretary of State, Mr. Rogers, in a speech a few

days ago, so that while these negotiations are going on relief could go in? It is now five weeks since a Red Cross plane was shot down by the Nigerian Air Force. Why is not the right hon. Gentleman putting pressure on the Nigerian Government, if he is capable of any pressure, for relief to go in now?

Mr. Stewart: This point was raised in the conversation between Dr. Arikpo and myself, that, pending the exact working out of the conditions for daylight flights, the Nigerians should allow night flights ad interim. Doctor Arikpo pointed out two genuine difficulties of the Nigerian Government over this. One is that we know perfectly well that every day on which there are night flights not only does relief go in but these flights are a cover for arms.
Secondly, there is this difficulty, and I ask hon. Members who are critical to bear with me for a moment. If the Nigerian Government agree for, say, seven or 14 days, or any other period, that there should be interim night flights while the arrangements for day flights are worked out, if Colonel Ojukwu chooses to drag his feet over the agreement for day flights, at the end of that time the Nigerian Government will be in the dreadful position of having to allow the night flights to go on indefinitely, or, in the face of the natural feelings of human beings, to say that they will now forbid night flights again.
Dr. Arikpo represented these difficulties to me. I told him that I hoped that, despite these difficulties, his Government would give this proposal the most serious and urgent consideration, and I believe that it will be one of the matters for discussion when the senior emissary of the Red Cross visits Lagos.
But I must say again—and this puts some of us Europeans to shame—that the Nigerian Government have shown a more merciful attitude about allowing food and medical supplies to go to their enemies than have many other nations. That inhibits me if I am asked to express censure of them, or to think of imposing any kind of penalty on them.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: The Foreign Secretary tells us that the Nigerian Government want guarantees that relief aircraft shall not be used for carrying arms.


Is he aware that, having worked on similar tasks with the International Committee of the Red Cross for many years, I find it absolutely inconceivable that that Committee, whose integrity is of the highest possible order, would ever agree to allow arms to go in its aircraft?
What protest has my right hon. Friend made against the appalling atrocity committed by the Nigerian Government when they shot down a Red Cross aeroplane which was flying under an agreement with the Nigerian Government, shot it down without warning and killing four neutral Swedes engaged in humanitarian work?

Mr. Stewart: The Nigerian Government spontaneously expressed the view that this was a disaster. As for the inspection of planes, no one questions the good faith of the International Committee of the Red Cross, but one could not in reason ask the Nigerian Government to allow planes to fly in without having some opportunity to satisfy themselves that they did not contain solely what they were required to contain. These planes are operated not only through the Red Cross.
I ask my right hon. Friend, whose feelings in this matter I entirely respect, to see this matter in proportion. The Nigerian Government have genuinely striven to allow a blockade to be breached in a way in which no blockade has ever been allowed to be breached before. That deserves the sympathy and support of humane people everywhere.

Viscount Lambton: Would not the Foreign Secretary agree that the difficulties of this tragic situation have been increased by the undefined position of the Red Cross? Has not the time now come for an international review of the Red Cross with a view to defining its status and increasing its effectiveness?

Mr. Stewart: That takes me somewhat beyond my present position. The considerations which the noble Lord has in mind are important, but our immediate task is to make sure that reconciliation between the Red Cross and the Nigerian Government is complete and that we try to get the relief in, if that is possible. Then the wider questions raised by the noble Lord may need examination.

Mr. Winnick: I hope that the Nigerians and the Biafrans will quickly agree

to relief supplies going in. However, in the meantime, while the arguments are going on, would it not be possible for the leading Powers, ourselves and the United States certainly, to mount a special airlift operation, in view of the threats to millions of people who may be dying of mass starvation within the next few days?
On the political aspect, if a Minister is soon to go from Britain to Lagos, would it not be possible for the same Minister to visit the Biafran-held area as well?

Mr. Stewart: The difficulty about this is that until comparatively recently Uli airport was deliberately blocked by the rebel authorities in daytime. With the best will in the world, one could not have got the relief supplies in. If they are to be taken in, it is imperative to have some degree of co-operation from the rebel authorities.
As to the politics of the matter, one is obliged to distinguish between a friendly Commonwealth Government and a group of people in rebellion against them, but, so that we should not be held to be taking too legalistic a view of the matter, at the beginning of this war we had a representative in the rebel-held areas, and he remained there until he was turned out.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are debating this subject on Thursday. I must protect the business of the House.

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

3.50 p.m.

Mr. A. H. Macdonald: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the cost of British entry into the Common Market".
Without going into the merits of the subject, Mr. Speaker, I have to show three things: that it is specific, important and urgent. As to its being specific, we have debated this question many times in the House, but those debates have, in the main, been concerned with the principles of the issues involved. Although estimates of the cost have been advanced


by distinguished back benchers on either side, they have been estimates only. It now appears from reports in the Press over the weekend that the Government are in possession of authoritative analyses showing the cost. I submit that there should be an opportunity for the Government to present to the House these analyses of the cost, and for us to discuss them.
If it be true that the facts are known, it is possible for us now to be quite specific about the advantages, if any, of joining, or about the disadvantages, because we are now in a position to quantify the proposal to join the Common Market. Because we can quantify it, we can now, for the first time, be specific. I therefore submit that this is a specific matter.
As to its importance, I assert without fear of contradiction that there could hardly be a more important matter to come before the House at present, seeing that the figures now appearing in the Press show that joining would affect the living standard of every citizen, and the sovereignty of the nation where it is committed to plan its own economy—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Under an application under Standing Order No. 9 we cannot debate whether Britain should join the European Economic Community.

Mr. Macdonald: I am simply trying, Mr. Speaker, without going into the merits, to illustrate the importance of the figures which, I understand, are now in the possession of the Government. As I say, the figures show that joining must affect every industry, our relations with the Commonwealth and our balance of payments. I do not wish to labour that point: the importance is evident.
It is on the question of urgency that the greatest difficulty lies in my way, but I believe that I can submit arguments to show that the matter is urgent. First, it is well known that the Government are following a rigorous economic policy. Reports are now coming forward, notably from the C.B.I., that the question of capital investment is one that is deserving of serious consideration. These reports have been echoed a number of times in debates in this House, namely, that the investment policies of firms must be profoundly affected if the costs of joining the Common Market are known.

Firms need to know where to invest, whether to invest in the Continent or in this country, and, if incentives are needed, that the type of incentives will be according to the cost involved. Industry must know and, I submit, must know without delay.
Further, still on the question of industrial investment, the cost of living must have a very profound effect on the people's purchasing power, and that itself must affect the incentives that are required for this purpose.
The second argument on the subject of urgency is that it is suggested in the reports now appearing in the Press that if we are to join the Common Market there will be a serious drop in the standard of living, as a result of which poor people must subsist on margarine—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not drift into the merits of our joining the Common Market.

Mr. Macdonald: I am sorry if I allow my feelings to trespass, Mr. Speaker, but it is clear that if these reports are factual there is a specific subject matter which must be urgently discussed. Reports, be they true or be they untrue, that the people's standard of living is to be so profoundly affected, should not be allowed to drift in isolation, but should be discussed here at the earliest possible opportunity.
It is the business of the Government to confirm or deny these reports. I submit that the House should have an opportunity to contemplate what the Government have to say on this subject, and to pronounce upon it. As you say, Mr. Speaker, I must not go into the odious implications of this policy, but for the reasons I have given I submit that the matter is one of urgency, is specific and is important.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. A. H. Macdonald) informed me this morning that he might this afternoon seek to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9.
The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the cost of British entry into the Common Market.


As the House knows, under the revised Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Order but to give no reasons for my decision.
I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman. I have given careful consideration to the representations that he has made, but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the revised Standing Order. I therefore cannot submit his application to the House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Concannon.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[26TH ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Concannon.]

Orders of the Day — FIRTH OF CLYDE (PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT)

3.57 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I am glad to have this opportunity to start a debate on planning and development in the area of the Firth of Clyde. In the last two years this area has quickly assumed a special importance industrially. In fact, informed commentators are already writing of a second industrial revolution in West-Central Scotland. I welcome wholeheartedly this prospect, although it brings with it problems and controversy.
We must be ready in Scotland to respond without delay and to the best advantage of Scotland. It will be a test of our adaptability, and a test, also, of our ability to reconcile all legitimate local interests, which may well be in conflict at times for reasons which are wholly justified and reputable, and which should be respected and properly examined.
What is the cause of the situation which has arisen and come to a head very recently? Briefly, it is the conjunction of an important fact of geography and a continuing world trend in shipping. The fact of geography is the deep water in the Firth of Clyde which provides, or can provide, sheltered berths for ships up to 500,000 tons at any state of the tide. It can provide the deepest water terminal facilities around the coasts of Britain.
The trend in shipping to which I referred is towards larger tankers and ore carriers. At various times during the past five years it has been thought that these could not exceed 100,000 or 150,000 tons, but now there are tankers in operation of over 300,000 tons, and others of 200,000 or 250,000 tons are being built and coming off the slipways. The result


is that attention is being focused on this very deep water site near a suitable coastline. It is not surprising that there have been inquiries and applications.
Although already there have been some opportunities to discuss this situation in the House and in the Scottish Committees, the increasing importance of the subject is the reason why the Opposition are providing time today for it to be debated. Of course, we do so with our usual constructive approach to such subjects. We seek to clarify from the Government what their latest attitude is to this matter and what, if anything, the Government are proposing to augment or change the existing system for planning and co-ordination to enable that system to deal effectively with the new and challenging situation.
There is no doubt of the potential in the Firth of Clyde if the present world trends continue. I make clear straight away that I do not intend to examine individual projects, but to discuss the situation in general. One project has already been the subject of a public inquiry under planning procedure and a decision is still pending; and, of course, I have no intention of discussing that. As regards tankers and ore carriers it is not surprising that the first proposals coming forward should be related to the oil and steel industries. The oil industry is already operating a system making use of the deep water in the West by its terminal at Finnart, on Loch Long, from which oil is pumped to Grangemouth.
The effect of proposals coming forward is to show that there is no adequate overall planning body to take a grip of the situation and to undertake the necessary co-ordination. There is the Economic Planning Council, which deals with the whole of Scotland and the four regional groups which work to it, but those regional groups do not cover West Central Scotland. There is not a special group for that area.
Planning procedures are being changed under the Bill which recently went through this House. The development plans of the present system are being changed to structure plans, but that change cannot come into its final use in the West of Scotland until the Wheatley Commission's report has been presented and considered and the new local government

organisation, whatever it may be, has come into existence. We know that that is bound to be some years ahead.
The result is that there are a number of planning authorities in the area. This means that applications and projects coming forward are dealt with in a piecemeal way. The authorities, naturally, are concerned primarily with their own areas and not with the whole area round the estuary of the Clyde. Of course, the Secretary of State, who is responsible for the whole area, comes into the procedure, but he comes in in the later stages. It is difficult where the Secretary of State is concerned for him to start directing at the beginning because he is the ultimate appeal authority under the planning procedure.
I shall give a few examples of what can happen. A firm, perhaps a large international firm, may come forward with a project which seems highly desirable, but its first application may be for a site which is not a very sensible one. If that site is rejected as a result of the planning procedure and perhaps a public inquiry, the firm has to start all over again to apply for another site. The question is, will it be patient enough to remain in the area and go on being interested enough to put in a second or even a third application?
The same project under the present procedure could be the subject of more than one public inquiry with much the same circumstances and much of the same ground being covered in the second inquiry. This could mean duplication and delay. There is also considerable doubt, which hon. Members on both sides of the House must face, whether objectors, who may have a very sound case against a particular location, are getting a fair hearing before decisions are taken.
I make clear right at the beginning, in case there should be any doubt on either side of the House and to save time, that we are fully in favour of industrial development which will help and improve the Scottish economy. There is no question of our opposing viable projects in principle, but we are concerned that so far as is humanly possible these projects should go to the most suitable places and not cause animosity among the local community, or scar unnecessarily outstanding scenic beauty and thus damage the interests of our important tourist


industry, or give rise to industrial dereliction similar to that which, in the past, has marred areas of Scotland and which we are now having to rectify.
There is another difficulty. A firm may say that there is only one site possible, for its own commercial reasons or on technical grounds. Who, then, can challenge the firm on what appears to be either its commercial considerations or technical matters? It may be that in the circumstances the site is only marginally superior to some other site which is better from all other points of view. The firm may not know all the facts. The good will that it would win by going to the second site might, in the long run, in its own interests outweigh the marginal advantage of the first site.
These are some problems which arise. I start by acknowledging that this is a complex and difficult situation. Because of the comparatively large number of different planning authorities in the area it is extremely difficult for those with projects and for the authorities to reach the best solutions, and reach them without long delays. We must not let these opportunities in Scotland slip by.
Besides those I have mentioned, there are two other bodies in the field. There is the Clyde Estuary Development Group, which was formed last year by the Clyde Port Authority. The Port Authority takes the chair and the Scottish Office has representatives who act as assessors. Therefore, that Development Group is something with which the Government are concerned. The authorities represented on it are the coastal authorities of the Clyde Estuary. Notably, they do not include Glasgow Corporation. It was this group that commissioned the Metra-Weddle Report.
In addition, the Government appear to have revived a body which has been in existence since 1947, namely, the Clyde Valley Planning Advisory Committee. That body was in existence earlier in other forms, but in 1947 it was set up with its present terms of reference. There are several authorities which are represented on the committee, but which are not included in the development group, including Glasgow. On the other hand, Argyll County Council is not on the advisory committee, although it is a member of the development group being one of the coastal authorities in the estuary.
It was announced on 26th March that the Government had proposed new terms of reference for the advisory committee. Are those terms of reference still being discussed, and have any decisions been reached upon them? I should also like to ask whether the advisory committee—which is clearly an advisory body, as its terms of reference have always made clear—is to have any executive functions.
Furthermore, who is to pay for the work which is to be commissioned by the advisory committee? Is it the constituent authorities themselves? If so, I suspect that there will be a good deal of argument about the allocation of expenditure. It seems quite clear that the development group and the advisory committee are not working together, and that neither is geared to tackle the whole situation. Do the Government consider that this machinery is enough to deal with the present situation and will it be able to do so in future?
Is there not a case for setting up a new body to deal with the special situation, at least during the coming 10 years, until the new planning authorities, which are likely to be much larger than the present ones, are in the saddle and are operating the new structure plan procedure? Until that happens, is there not a case for special action and for a new body to take over the functions of the advisory committee?
It is also vital that objections to industrial development at certain proposed sites should be heard, should be seen to be heard, and should be fairly treated. Without going into particular cases, I can say that dl objectors who have been in touch with me in regard to various schemes in the area over the past year have made it clear that they are not opposed to the development on the site in question, provided that they can be satisfied that alternatives have been fully considered and that the whole matter has been looked into and objections properly heard before a final decision has been taken, and that the procedure has been impartial and complete.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): This is the second time that the hon. Gentleman has returned to the theme of objectors not being fairly heard. I should like to have chapter and verse. We should be in


breach of the planning Acts if we did not hear objectors fairly and properly. I should like to know when this has happened.

Mr. Campbell: What I am saying is that those who are putting forward objections to particular schemes are not against the development itself but want to be satisfied that their objections will be fully heard under the planning procedure and that alternative sites will be considered.
We in this House who have to consider planning legislation may be satisfied that everything is being done according to the law, but it is important that the procedure must be seen to be carried out. We must make it clear, where matters are being carried out quite correctly under the law, that everything is being correctly done, so that people do not feel a grievance. Local animosity can arise if persons in affected areas get the impression that the whole matter is not being fully looked into.
I shall not take time by going into cases, although one or two of my hon. Friends will probably be doing so. I will gladly inform the Minister afterwards about some of the worries, anxieties and doubts which have been expressed to me. I agree with the Minister that, if the present planning procedure is being correctly carried out, then everything possible is being done. That in itself does not remove an impression that something is being steamrollered through, whether or not that is in fact true. That is the point I seek to make.
We must seek to avoid unnecessarily long delays. At the same time, we must not lose opportunities altogether because, for example, a sponsor of a project loses patience and leaves Scotland.
I should like to say a word or two about the steel industry, which, being nationalised, must be the concern of the Government. I shall not go into questions of day-to-day administration, which is not our concern. I wish to point to the long-term potential of this very deep water for the steel industry. If the trend towards larger ore carriers continues, and there are to be ore carriers of over 150,000 tons in the future, then probably only the Firth of Clyde is the place where they can go without dredging.
The economics of the matter is that the richer ores with a greater iron content can be brought greater distances—for example, from Africa, Brazil and Australia—more economically in these large ships than ores of less iron content can be brought shorter distances in smaller ships. There is also the economic fact which has been proved in other parts of the world, notably in Japan, that if steel works are sited near to an ore terminal, transport and other costs are reduced.
In saying this, and drawing attention to the potential on the Clyde, I am not intending to knock other parts of Britain. I readily recognise that Teesside is now being considered because there is a need there, where at present a large part of the steel industry is situated, for some form of terminal.
I am saying that the Government should be careful that decisions taken now or in the near future should not proved to be shortsighted. If, in four or five years' time, ore carriers of these large sizes are operating as part of the normal scene in the steel industry, we cannot then say that it could not have been foreseen. It can be foreseen now. We must expect larger and larger ships to be launched over the next four or five years. In that event, the Clyde Estuary is probably the only place where such large ships can be brought in without there having to be an immense amount of dredging work. It would have a considerable effect on the siting of future steel works.
The Scottish Council for Industry and Development set up, a few months ago, a study group to look into all these questions. That group issued an interim statement three or four weeks ago, in which it held out the prospect of an ocean terminal in the Firth of Clyde. The statement foresaw that economies of scale of the kind of which I have been speaking are likely to make this necessary in the future. They envisaged an ocean terminal to serve not only Britain, but a large part of Western Europe, with a view to these large vessels being kept out of the comparatively shallow waters of the North Sea, in which the hazards tend to increase sharply the rate of insurance. Insurance comprises a very large item in running these very large ships.
This would entail a transshipment system and additional activity not only


in the west of Scotland, but also in the Forth, in the east. The group foresaw that it would create an east-west axis through Scotland, with outlets to Europe on the east.
All these are exciting prospects for Scotland and its economic future. What attention are the Government giving to them? They are prospects which will exact a lot of hard work, good planning and wise administration in both central and local government, if we are to secure the full benefits from what could well be for this area a second industrial revolution.

4.21 p.m.

Mr. William Small: I welcome the speech of the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell). I am pleased to find that on this occasion, unlike previous debates, there is no element of a "Save the Argylls" undertone. As he rightly said, we are discussing a most important and pleasing prospect for Scotland.
I live close to where development is taking place. I served on the local authority for about six years, so I have a reasonably good understanding of the geography, the complexities of the subject, and the worries of those who are affected by development of this kind.
In considering these matters in terms of planning and the other aspects involved, we are talking in terms of international concern. Firms with an international reputation are involved. The dialogue which goes on beforehand between these highly reputable firms, competent and well advised, and the planning administrations, both local and national, is analogous to the work which Government Departments understand, so to that extent I do not see any great degree of secrecy. On the other hand, I see a motivation for coming to an understanding.
I take the example of what is now being planned for Portencross. In West Kilbride, there has been a meeting, full of "atmospherics", about the local planning authority and its right to come to terms with Chevron Oil. As far as I know, Chevron Oil has carefully considered where it might find the facilities best suited for it, and, in its judgment, it has now come more or less to the point of deciding that Portencross meets what

it needs. The argument in the area is that the oil terminal and refinery might go to Ardrossan. The Clyde Port Authority has done its homework over the past 18 months on this great complex, including the future for steel as well, and the suggestion was that there should be a jetty 1½ miles out from Ardrossan. That is a practical possibility to accommodate oil. There is no dispute that it is physically possible for that purpose. However, for steel and ore it is impractical.
That is the judgment of people who make their living more or less from advising according to the relevant criteria in such cases. Therefore, as I say, for oil an extended jetty 1½miles out from Ardrossan is physically possible, but for the importation of ore it is not practicable. To that extent, therefore, it has been disregarded from the standpoint of the wider outlook.
We must come to a decision soon on these matters. For the last 10 years, we have lagged behind Europort, at Rotterdam. Without a good port, our nation is losing revenue. Great revenue can come in to a port from every gallon of oil or ton of ore. I have made a rough calculation of what it could be. The hon. Gentleman spoke of vessels up to 500,000 tons. The arithmetic which I have done is purely symbolic rather than accurate, and I ask for it to be treated in that way, but it leads me to this sort of conclusion.
There are 240 gallons per ton of oil. There are 240 pence in £1. There are cargoes of 250,000 tons, and a prospect of going up to 500,000 tons. Thus, at ld. per gallon, there is the prospect of £250,000 every time a ship docks. With one tanker landing in this area each month, there could be an income of £3 million every year if the surcharge were 1d. a gallon. Those are symbolic figures, but they show what the revenue could be from port facilities and what a great asset we could have in Scotland.
There has been argument on television, in the Press and elsewhere about navigational hazards. But this stretch of water has been, so to speak, the test-bed; all kinds of ships have used the measured mile, being put through their paces there. In terms of safety, therefore, all is well. There are 13 miles of channel and all deep water. As for the


hazard of fog, I can only say that I know the area well and that the argument between Prestwich and Abbotsinch Airport about this hazard is an indication of the way cases can be built up by people who want to argue about location.
From the broad point of view, I urge that we move quickly. Let us close the deal and get on with the job.

4.26 p.m.

Sir Fitzroy Maclean: I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Mr. Small), who happens to be my constituent. I am not so sure though whether he votes for me. I accept some of what he says. I agree that we ought to press on, but we ought not to do so at the cost of brushing aside objections or of careful examination of the facts.
I cannot agree, either, with the hon. Gentleman's view about what constitutes amenity. He was reported in the local newspaper last week as having said that he considers that a oil refinery would greatly add to the amenities of the Hunterston Peninsular. That is an eccentric point of view.

Mr. Small: I did not say "greatly add". I said that man-made structures, such as the Forth Bridge and other things, can sometimes contribute to greater amenity, even enhancing the natural scene as we see it at present in certain places.

Sir F. Maclean: That is not how the hon. Gentleman was reported.

Mr. Small: I cannot answer for that.

Sir F. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman must take it up with the local newspaper.
I am glad that we are having this debate. The proposals for industrial development which we are discussing are of the greatest importance not only to the Clyde, but to Scotland and to the United Kingdom as a whole. It seems to me, therefore, that we should discuss them in a wide national context, not piecemeal or in a narrow local context, as they seem to have been hitherto. This is why I strongly support the plea made in opening the debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) for better planning machinery.
My own position is clear. I have always wanted to bring more industry to Scotland and indeed to my own constituency, but I also want to try to ensure that it is sited in such a way that it does the most good and the least harm. Also, I want to ensure that in the discussions and inquiries which lie before us proper consideration is given to the views and interests of all concerned. These may not all be identical. It would be surprising if they were. But that is no reason why the views of this or that section of the community should simply be swept aside.
What is no less important is that decisions should be taken with full knowledge of all the relevant facts. These, in spite of Questions tabled and reports written, have so far been anything but easy to come by. There has been a tendency on the part of all concerned to act secretly, to put up a smokescreen and get busy behind it. This naturally makes people wonder just what is going on and whether they will be "blinded by science" and then have a lot of decisions imposed on them by one authority or another, without proper discussion of the why or wherefore.
I make no claim to be an expert in these matters. I am not a hydrographer, nor a marine engineer. I have never brought a 300,000-ton tanker into port in the teeth of a south-westerly gale, which is one of the problems involved. I am not a nuclear scientist, nor even, like so many hon. Members, an economist. I have never had to plan the layout of a steel complex, or operate an oil refinery. Nor have I ever had to deal, except on a small scale, with pollution. But, without being an expert, I have, like most hon. Members, had enough experience of life and public affairs to want to be given much more information and to have many more questions answered before decisions are taken.
Take perhaps the most important question of all—employment. In North Ayrshire, in my constituency, which is the area chiefly concerned, we have several hundred men, women and children of different ages out of work, rather under 1,000 all told. But there is also a shortage of skilled labour. It is common knowledge that I.C.I. is hard put to it to find the skilled men it needs for its new nylon plant at Ardeer. I should like to be told in due course how many new


jobs will be created by each of the proposed projects, not jobs shifted from one part of Scotland to another but genuine new jobs. As a constituency Member, I would also like to know how many of the new jobs will be filled locally and not by men brought in from outside.
I should like next to touch on the only firm proposal up to now that directly concerns my constituency, and which, having passed Ayr County Council, is shortly to be the subject of a public inquiry—the proposed siting on good agricultural land of an oil terminal and refinery by Chevron Oil at Portencross on the south side of the Hunterston Peninsula. In spite of what the hon. Member for Scotstoun said, or did not say, it is bound to destroy the amenities of one of the most beautiful parts of the Firth of Clyde. An oil refinery does not add to amenities anywhere. It might be said that a nuclear power station does, but not an oil refinery.
I understand that the project is to cost £30 or £40 million. At least 40 per cent.—£12 to f16 million—would come out of the British taxpayer's pocket. It appears that it would eventually provide about 200 or 300 jobs, mainly for skilled workers, at a cost to the taxpayer of about £500,000 a job. But it would also deprive more than 70 agricultural workers of their jobs and 30 or so families of their homes. Hon. Members opposite may not think that that is very important, but it is important to the people concerned. I ask these questions genuinely and look forward to receiving answers if they are available.
Another question I want to ask is this. How desirable an addition to our economy is this project? What sort of bargain shall we have for our £12 million or £16 million? Will Chevron, for example, be competing with British oil companies on an already overcrowded market? Will the profits stay in Scotland or Great Britain, or will they go back to the United States? These questions need to be asked and answered. We must not let ourselves be dazzled by the glamour of big business and high-powered salesmanship. I should surely not have to say that to hon. Members opposite.
Chevron Oil, supported by Ayr County Council, except those members who represent the area concerned, says that economic necessity demands that the oil

terminal and refinery should be sited together at Portencross, where there is the necessary depth of water to bring in big tankers. For this purpose it proposes to take a good many hundred acres of just about the best farmland in the United Kingdom. And then there is the question of the damage that will be done to the amenities of the Clyde. What is meant in this context by "economic necessity"? Why do the oil terminal and the refinery have to be sited together?
We all know that oil can be conveyed for considerable distances by pipeline. Another American oil company, Murco, proposes to do just that a few miles away up the Clyde, at Inverkip. Does it not mean, when Chevron Oil talks about economic necessity, that if it were asked to pipe its oil 10 miles or so its profits would not be quite so big?

Mr. Archie Manuel: Where does the hon. Gentleman mean that the oil should be piped to?

Sir F. Maclean: One possibility would be in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, between Lochwinnoch and Kilbirnie.

Mr. Manuel: Has the hon. Gentleman consulted the people there?

Sir F. Maclean: I have not consulted them. But neither have the people in my constituency been consulted. I like to think that those concerned explore every possibility and do not say, "Oh, dear! This happens to be in the constituency of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) and, therefore, it is sacrosanct", or, "This happens to be near where So-and-so lives, so we must not touch it".
The hon. Gentleman has illustrated my point for me extremely well, because, whatever he says, if the refinery were sited a few miles away inland the land concerned would be moorland and not so valuable agriculturally. What is more, it already has some beginnings of industrial development. Then, quite clearly, the refinery would not have the same effect on amenities as it would if it were sited on the coast.
Yet, in spite of this, Ayr County Council, after no more than seven weeks for consultation, agreed to the project without apparently even bothering to find out the additional cost of siting the refinery a few miles further inland, in a


position where it would do less damage to amenity and less damage from an agricultural point of view. It certainly met the requirements of the hon. Member for Scotstoun and did a quick job, considering how much there was to go into. This seems incredible, but it is, unfortunately, all too typical and bears out what my hon. Friend said about the way decisions of this kind are reached piecemeal, haphazardly and without most of the relevant information.
Nor, so far as I know, has anyone examined the possibility of making Murco and Chevron share a terminal or use offshore mooring points and underwater pipelines. These things may not be practicable—I have said that I am not an expert—but they are done successfully in other countries.
But, of course, the Chevron Oil project is not the only or the most important project which there is talk of siting on or around the Hunterston Peninsula. There is also a project for a multi-million pound iron ore terminal and steel complex, for which, according to the widely discussed Metra-Weddle report, the best site would be on the northern side of the Hunterston Peninsula between Hunterston and Fairlie. This is clearly an even more important proposition and one which at first sight is much more desirable to bring to Scotland—if it materialises at all, which, I gather, is by no means certain. On the other hand, if this project were sited at Hunterston, it would clearly do even more damage to the amenities of the Clyde. Indeed, it would change the character of the whole area.
Now, here again, it seems to me, a lot of probing must be done. I am not prepared to accept the Metra-Weddle Report as gospel. The consultants' terms of reference seem to me to have been too narrow and their study of the subject not to have gone far enough. It is true that there is the necessary deep water and also a certain amount of flat land at Hunterston and that, therefore, it would no doubt be possible to site a terminal there for giant tankers and ore carriers, with some industrial installations nearby, but a glance at the chart will show that deep water and flat land are also to be found in a number of other places on the Clyde.
What, for example, are the arguments against Ardmore, on the Upper Clyde, where, we are told, the steel industry wanted to go originally and where 6,000 acres are to be reclaimed, offering tremendous possibilities for development? Could not something of the kind be done there on an even bigger scale?
Another question needs asking in relation to the steel industry. Supposing the main weight of the steel industry is brought to Ayrshire, what will be the effect on North Lanarkshire, where it is at present and where unemployment is already serious and likely to become worse? Is this something we should worry about, or is it not? If, on the other hand, a move to Ayrshire is desirable—and I accept that it may be—what are the arguments against Ardrossan? I listened to what the hon. Member for Scotstoun had to say about this with interest, but, with all due respect, I cannot accept his views as absolutely definitive.
What, in fact, are the arguments against Ardrossan, only four or five miles south of Hunterston and crying out for industrial development? I am sure that there are arguments against it, because there are always arguments against anything, but do they necessarily outweigh the very real arguments against Hunterston? I believe that the potentialities of Ardrossan, which could be developed in conjunction with the existing growth point at Irvine, deserve very careful study. Have they had that study? I have no reason to believe that they have.
We are always being told that this or that or the other alternative would involve additional expenditure, that it would involve building jetties, blowing up bits of the sea-bed, etc., but just how much expenditure? What proportion of the total would such expenditure be? How would it compare with the additional expenditure that would have to be approved by siting the steel complex at, say, Hunterston? Because, of course, the cost, whether to the ratepayer or to the taxpayer, of providing the social infrastructure required by a green-field project of this kind would be enormous, whereas if any of these projects were to be sited on the highly populated Upper Clyde, or at Ardrossan, within easy reach of Irvine New Town and the whole of that complex, then the roads, houses,


schools, and so on, would be readily available. I am prepared to be proved wrong about it, but I should like to know the facts.
A lot has been said about the damage likely to be done by both projects to the amenities of the Clyde and about how much or how little that matters. On one thing I think we are all agreed, namely, that the Clyde is a very beautiful place, that it is readily accessible to the whole of Central Scotland, that its beauties are enjoyed by millions of people every year and that none of us wants to see its amenities damaged more than is absolutely necessary. That surely is common ground. It has, of course, been said often enough that you cannot live off amenities. But that is only partly true. Whatever the Metra-Weddle Report may say to the contrary, we have in North Ayrshire a flourishing tourist trade which makes a big contribution to the Scottish economy and gives a great deal of employment. If the amenities disappeared, the tourist industry would be likely to disappear, too. How many people go to Motherwell for their holidays, after all? I mean no offence to Motherwell. I am speaking only in the context of tourism. I am sorry if I sounded rude about it. The loss to the tourist industry would mean a big financial loss to Scotland and would also mean the loss of a good many jobs.
We are often reminded of how much damage was done by ruthless industrialisation and bad planning in the 19th century. We do not want to see the same mistakes made again or to embark on projects which will be out of date in 10 years from now, as so many earlier projects have been, because views on this and kindred matters change surprisingly quickly. Bright new ideas are often very soon out of date.
Let me take one example. It is barely 10 years since a first nuclear power station was built at Hunterston—Hunterston A. It was stated officially and categorically at the time that the reason for siting it there was for safety. It had to be well away from any centres of industry or population. Now it is apparently proposed to site a vast industrial complex all around about it. What is the explanation?
As HANSARD shows, my attempts to get a straight answer out of the Ministry of Power or the Scottish Office have been notably unsuccessful. But, by one of those amusing but revealing mishaps which do not occur nearly often enough in official life, the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, enclosed in his answer to one of my letters some of the Departmental minutes written on it over a couple of months. I will read out one of them, dated 14th March last, concerning restrictions on development in the neighbourhood of Hunterston A.
The minute reads:
You will see that we think it better to avoid being too specific about the actual details of the restrictions, and in this the Ministry of Power hold the same view, but for your own information the categories of restriction are:—

1. Any development within a radius of one mile from the site, which might lead to any increase in residential population or might cause an influx of non-residential population:
2. Any development within a radius of two miles of the site which will provide residential accommodation, permanent or temporary, for more than fifty people, or would be likely to cause an influx of non-residential population exceeding fifty people.
3. Any development within a radius of five miles likely to lead to an increase of five hundred people in the population of any place".
But all this now seems to be going overboard. If so, it represents a fairly sudden change of view. It would be interesting to know what has happened to justify this and whether it is, in fact, now perfectly safe—in spite of everything that was said 10 years ago and was still being said by the Scottish Office less than four months ago—to site an oil refinery and terminal, and even a steel complex, only a few hundred yards from an old-fashioned nuclear installation of the Hunterston A type. Here is a question on which I believe the public have the right to be reassured; and this is only one of many questions that need to be answered.
What surely we must aim at is careful zoning into industrial and amenity areas and to try as best we can to keep the two separate. What I am afraid we may get, if we do not look out, is the sort of haphazard, piecemeal, ribbon development which spoils larger areas of the countryside than is necessary and for insufficient reason.
The Clyde, from Gourock to Ardrossan, is one of the most beautiful and unspoilt stretches of coast in the world and is enjoyed by enormous numbers of people annually. It is Central Scotland's playground. From the point of view of the tourist industry, it is a big money spinner and could be an even bigger one if, say, £12 to £16 million of the taxpayers' money were injected into it.
And yet, without waiting to hear if there is any real likelihood of the much talked of steel complex ever coming to Scotland, without troubling to find out whether the proposed oil refinery could be sited further inland, without examining the dangers of pollution or nuclear radiation and without paying any attention to the thousands of objections which have been addressed to them by local residents, Ayr County Council is quite arbitrarily seeking to designate the Hunterston area for industrial development. This, in the end, will mean that this part of the Clyde will have been ruined, not for any grandiose industrial project—because that may fall through—but simply to make "a fast buck" for a handful of American oilmen.
I want to see more industry come to Scotland and we should do all we can to get it to come. But I want to see it go where it will do the most good and cause the least harm, where it will provide the most new jobs and do the least damage to amenities, and where it will make the biggest contribution to the national economy with the fewest bad side effects.
This is not going to be easy. There are bound to be conflicts of interest and inevitably concessions will have to be made by both sides, to necessity, to the public interest and to plain common sense. I want to make certain at this stage that all concerned have a proper chance to state their case and that due weight is given to their views and interests. I also want to make certain that any decisions which are taken are made in the light of all the relevant information and in a truly national context.

4.54 p.m.

Mr. Archie Manuel: I appreciated the tone of much of the

speech of the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell) and I agreed with a great many of his comments. I agreed entirely with his remarks about planning and development and particularly with what he said about the importance to Scotland of the Firth of Clyde.
The hon. Member gave tacit support to the Hunterston proposal because of the deep water facilities there. These days we must envisage ships of not just 150,000 tons but of 500,000 tons. Hunterston is the only deep water base from which ships of this size can operate, particularly bearing in mind the needs of the steel industry.
However, the hon. Member went on to refer to a change in the planning system. I agree that change is necessary in many things, but remembering the rights of objectors—not just individuals, but organisations—I suggest that to talk of changing the planning system at this stage could result in great delay which might have a ruinous effect on Scotland's chance of securing the industrial complex about which we are speaking.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I was not suggesting a change in the planning system. I was referring to the change which will occur, in any event, as a result of the Bill which is going through Parliament. I was questioning the Government on the need for an additional overall planning body. I was not referring to changing the procedures and the whole system.

Mr. Manuel: The hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) made a contribution in his inimitable style and said much about objectors. I assure him that their views are given pride of place. In Ayrshire, every suitable opportunity is provided so that objectors have wide opportunities to make their views abundantly clear.
I hope that the hon. Member will make it clear to the objectors that they should voice not only their objections, but support them with facts. In return, I assure him that Ayr County Council will provide all the facts when appearing before inquiries on this subject. The council will explain factually why it is against the views of the objectors, who do not want industry to come to Hunterston.
One would imagine, listening to some objectors, that it is planned to establish this industrial complex on the doorstep of West Kilbride. Does the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire know how far from West Kilbride this development will take place? I have walked it. Indeed. I have trekked up and down Hunterston, but I have not seen the millions of holidaymakers to whom the hon. Gentleman referred. I frequently fish at Portencross and I have not seen millions of holidaymakers there, either.
West Kilbride is an exclusive little place, but I urge the hon. Member to visit some of the inhabitants who live in the housing schemes of the area. Let him go inland and seek the views of the workers on this subject. I think that he will get opinions of a different colour compared with his rich Tory friends who reside in the more influential parts of West Kilbride.
I deplore the quite uncalled for criticisms which have been made of Ayr County Council as the planning authority for the Hunterston area. Having been a member of the council for many years, I resent the hostility which has been shown by a section—I emphasise that it is only one section—of the population. of West Kilbride towards Mr. Miller, the county's chief legal assistant, and county councillor Lambie, the chairman of the planning committee.
Both of these gentlemen attended a meeting last week at which they were to explain their reasons for reaching certain decisions. The meeting was held in West Kilbride. but I regret to say that the section of the population to which I have referred did not want to hear the reasons that these gentlemen were prepared to give. They were ready to explain why they had decided to support the industrial complex being sited at Hunterston.
This section of the population did its best to break up the meeting; and I am informed by my local newspaper that finally the meeting ended in disorder. The two gentlemen could not make themselves heard because they were shouted down by what I will not call dervishes, but certainly educated ignoramuses. People attending a meeting to hear reasons surely should listen to the answers to their questions and to explanatory speeches made at it.

Sir F. Maclean: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one of the questions which the representatives of Ayr County Council were unable to answer at that meeting was how much more it would cost Chevron to site the complex further inland in his constituency? It was apparent that they had not even asked Chevron that question or, if they had, that Chevron had refused to answer it.
As for the meeting breaking up in disorder, I understand that what happened was that members of Ayr County Council tried to bring the meeting to a close—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to be brief.

Sir F. Maclean: The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) gave way to me.

Mr. Manuel: The local Press is not exactly against the hon. Member, but it carried the headline, "Planning convener howled down". I will not read the article, but it appears from it that the situation was worse even than I am suggesting and that those attending the meeting did not want to hear the reasons for Ayr County Council's decision.
I know many people in West Kilbride. As I understand, the people at the meeting thought that Ayr County Council was not in possession of the full facts—the hon. Member said something similar today—and, therefore, should not have decided to support the deep water port, the oil refinery, the ore terminal and the steel works being sited on the Firth of Clyde, mainly at Hunterston.
As for Ayr County Council not being in possession of the full facts, hon. Members should remember that the county council was a member of the Clyde Estuary Group which led to the Metra-Weddle Report. They should remember, too, that the Clyde Port Authority, very much in the centre of that, has also accepted that the complex should be in that area. The opinion of the Clyde Port Authority should not be treated lightly. Its opinion is to be highly valued—

Sir F. Maclean: The one question on which the county council did not seem to have been informed was the essential one of the difference in cost involved in siting the refinery on the shore and siting it inland. Why was that?

Mr. Manuel: My comrades on the benches round me are complaining bitterly that I am being too kind in giving way to the hon. Member so often, since they want to contribute to the debate. In view of that, I hope that he will forgive me if I do not give way to him again.
I understand that certain elements at the West Kilbride meeting advocated putting the oil refinery at Beith, in my constituency, midway between the point which the hon. Member mentioned and Kilbirnie. What the West Kilbride people will oppose by every means at their disposal being sited in their area, they will impose on the people of another area with whom they have had no communication. If in the proper planning sense the oil refinery is to be sited at Beith, we will accept it. I mean by that, recognising who is the planning authority for the area. The hon. Member does not accept the decision already made, but we will not accept it simply to suit the convenience of those in West Kilbride who are against it.
The people who are against the proposals for Hunterston now want another inquiry set up so that other areas can be examined in an attempt to make certain that the industrial complex shall not be near their area. Do not they realise the great danger of Scotland losing altogether the enormous benefits that this £1,000 million complex could bring? If there is to be another lengthy inquiry, in my opinion Scotland could lose out altogether by the whole industrial complex going abroad. That should be kept firmly in mind.
The people of West Kilbride will have an opportunity to state their views and have them considered fully at a public inquiry. We have deep water facilities for the port at Hunterston, and we must make sure that they are used for the benefit of Scotland, thereby ensuring that we have no return to the days of decay and depression which inflicted deep wounds on the population of North Ayrshire before the hon. Member ever knew the place.
I was there as a local councillor at that time, and we are not having that sort of thing again inflicted on Scotland. It happened in the late 'twenties and 'thirties, and our memories of those days are

too vivid for us to risk losing the opportunity not only of putting North Ayrshire on the map but of opening up a new era for Scotland.
Let us not make a scapegoat of Ayr County Council. It has a record second to none as a live, progressive local authority which has led the way in the reduction of the infant and maternal mortality rates, in the introduction of school milk and meals, in the setting up of nursery schools and in introducing many other services which, to my recollection, received no support from the representatives of West Kilbride.
I call on the House to support the county council and to recognise that it stands at the forefront of the very best of our local authorities.

5.8 p.m.

Miss Harvie Anderson: In the time at my disposal, I will not attempt to follow the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel). Some of us came here fearful lest parochial interest should prevail, and certainly his speech has added very much to my fears—

Mr. Manuel: In what way, you silly woman?

Sir F. Maclean: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) to call you a silly woman?

Miss Anderson: Curiously enough, I could call the hon. Gentleman much worse, but I will not.

Mr. Manuel: What?

Miss Anerson: I shall not take up the time of the House by doing it now. I may have an opportunity to do so after we have left the Chamber.
The consideration before us today is how to make the proposed developments of the Clyde in the most effective way. Those of us whose constituencies lie in the heart of the area obviously feel great concern at the conflict of interests which any development on this scale must arouse.
I welcome the proposal for a deep water berth. It will secure for Scotland the base for industrial prosperity over the next half century. It is also necessary to make a major decision without delay, since one of the reasons is that, when the


steel industry contemplates the renewal of its ore-carrying fleet, it must do it in the light of the knowledge of where that fleet is to discharge its cargoes. If we are to consider ships which are three times the size of those carrying ore at present, we must do so in terms of a decision clearly made as to whether there will be a deep water berth and where.
The decision falls into two parts: first, that there shall be such a deep water berth, which I fully support, and. secondly, where it shall be sited. I do not pretend to be an expert, but I suggest that, regarding the Metra Report, certain aspects vital to Scotland were not considered.
Two particular aspects I should like to mention are, first, that no estimate was asked for of the comparative costs of the areas under consideration and, secondly, that no analysis was asked for of the overall cost saving should a single location for the whole concentration be adopted. I hope that the Minister of State will note these two points, because they seem very important in regard to the best investment which we can make with a very large sum of the taxpayers' money.
The establishment of an oil terminal is only part of the story, because it will bring in its wake many associated developments. The considerations before us cover an area which, if developed piecemeal, could establish as a black country the magnificent area of beauty which, in the Metra Report, is described by Professor Weddle as comparable only with the Alps, the Rockies and our own west coast of Scotland. We should recognise the problem of interest for the tourist trade in these words. If we alter the character of this area it would certainly be permissible to do so if work was to be created for all in the years ahead. But many of these developments are high cost investment and low yield in jobs.
I heard the Minister of State mutter some rather disparaging things in connection with this point when it was made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean). It is quite reasonable to ask how many jobs will be provided from this high cost investment. It is also reasonable to ask what proportion of these jobs will be for skilled workers and what

proportion will be for unskilled workers, because in the immediate future we must consider how many new jobs will be available in relation to the investment. I think that many of the projects which we are considering have not got the job yield that will translate the heavy weight of industrial population from central Scotland, where it now is, to the area under discussion. In this connection I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the picture of Bantry Bay in yesterday's Sunday Times which seems to illustrate my point.
Thus, in the foreseeable future, even taking a span of a generation—and I do not propose to attempt to look further ahead than that—a third of the population of the whole of Scotland will probably continue to be employed within the existing industrial complex. In other words, of the 11 million people in Scotland, nearly half are concentrated in an area—

Mr. John Rankin: Twenty million people.

Miss Anderson: I stand corrected. But my point still remains that half the population of Scotland live in an area of minimum amenity value but are within reach of an area of maximum amenity. Ironically, because of rising wage rates this area has come within reach for the first time ever in recent years. We are considering the balance of interests for the whole of the industrial complex in central Scotland—[Interruption.] No, they do not. They used to go once a year, but they now go much more often.
I should like to remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that the area with which we are concerned is not only Hunterston, but the whole of the Firth of Clyde. These proposals cover virtually the whole area now regarded as the compensation for the terrible housing and amenity deficiencies of the last industrial development on Clydeside. Such amenity could be denied for the purposes for which they were accepted as being required in recent times.
I want to make a short reference to a minute of the Renfrew County Council in January this year. The point is that at the joint meeting of the Town Planning, Health and Landward Committtee of the County Council agreement was reached


about the necessary alteration in the county plan to pursue the developments which we are discussing. At Wemyss Bay, Longhaugh and further down the river, the green belt concept has to be altered to accommodate industrial development. I am not against this, but it is important to recognise that only a few years ago highly populated industrial complexes were thought to require a green belt as lungs for the people living within them. We are curtailing the size of that green belt or lung. We are doing it in two ways. First, by altering the existing green belt boundaries and, secondly, by proposing to absorb huge areas vastly greater than the green belt in the new complexes. There is also the question of where people shall live in these new complexes. Those of us who live within oil refinery range, which is very much greater than is popularly supposed, know that problems will arise from air pollution not hitherto experienced in that area.
I should like to quote part of a letter from the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland in relation to this problem, although connected with experience at Grangemouth. The final sentence is important:
You will know, of course, that there can be no absolute embargo on noxious emissions from premises of this kind and that the firms concerned are only required to adopt the best practicable means of avoiding these.
I accept that this is the case, but I also recognise that it produces a situation which does not offer the best living or recreational atmosphere for people. I should like to remind the Secretary of State that the question which was so prominent in the recent inquiry with regard to the establishment of the refinery at Longhaugh was that the majority of patients in Erskine hospital are chronic chest cases.
There is more that I should like to say about points not mentioned so far, but many other hon. Members wish to speak. Among the important considerations not fully described to date is the question of the social investment already made within the industrial complexes and required for any new one and the infrastructure necessary to support effective developments.
There is also the travel-to-work pattern which has changed dramatically in recent years, and which I hope means that people will not have to live as close to their work as was the case when the difficulties in the Glasgow area were originally built up. There is then the question of the Clyde Port Authority proposed reclamation of land which must, because of cost factors, be used for industry.
All those things lead me to believe, and to support my hon. Friend when he says, that we have not enough powerful planning mechanism to make the speedy overall decisions which will on the one hand eliminate the parochial approach and on the other do justice to the conflict which we recognise. I think that it should be possible to set up a committee which would work on a truly regional basis and take into consideration the whole complex including the City of Glasgow as it is at the present time. I think that this committee could be extremely small. I have in mind a committee of nine or ten members.
I think that one member should represent the city—and here I am putting forward a concrete proposal—one member should represent the burghs jointly, two should represent the counties, one member should be a planning expert, and obviously there would have to be somebody from the Scottish office. The committee would have to move quickly. This would be its object. It would have power to make recommendations, which would in turn lead to quick decisions.
I feel—and here I join those who have made this point—that time is slipping by. We cannot afford to avoid making decisions however unpalatable, which will determine at least the initial siting of a deep water berth. I appeal to the Secretary of State to recognise the deficiencies of present procedures. I feel strongly about this for reasons of being associated with the pattern of Scotland for the future. We must develop something now and make the decisive decision on which the whole future and prosperity of Scotland depends.

5.22 p.m.

Mr. George Lawson: I become rather disturbed when I hear hon. Members opposite talking about expediting planning, or setting up planning machinery to work more effectively


and more expeditiously than the existing planning machinery. We have recently discussed a Bill about planning in Scotland. Although it was not as strenuously opposed as some other Bills I have known, we nevertheless saw the Committee dividing on an issue which demanded that everyone affected by a proposal should be post-carded so that he knew exactly how he would be affected. There was a tremendous amount of argument by those who wanted to ensure that everyone who was in the least bit affected by even quite minor changes in environment was informed of what it was proposed to do.
When hon. Gentlemen opposite talk about altering the planning machinery so that decisions on various matters can be expedited, and, at the same time, the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell) says that the greatest care must be taken to ensure that every interest is consulted and protected. I wonder whether hon. Gentlemen opposite—I should call them hon. Members, because they are not all hon. Gentlemen—are trying to ride more than one horse. I know that politicians are supposed to ride more than one horse. Someone once said that if a politician could not do that he ought to leave the circus, but we get this sort of thing far too often.
There are certain matters which would not trouble me very much. For example, I should not be very much troubled about tourists going to the West Kilbride area. I am more concerned about people living in the area, and those who occasionally go to Glasgow to enjoy themselves. I was there the other day with my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. John Robertson) and we certainly enjoyed what we could see of the area. We would feel very unhappy if this was destroyed. I am more concerned, however, about the people in the whole of the West of Scotland who can enjoy the area; although unfortunately most of them can enjoy it only very occasionally.
I say to the hon. Lady the Member for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) that it is not just a question of people being able for the first time to afford to get down there. At one time they went, if not to West Kilbride, certainly "doon the water". The trouble is that instead of going there now they go to Spain,

to Majorca, to Italy, to Greece, and to various other places. I do not think that we ought to spend £12 million to £16 million to make this into a Monte Carlo. We do not have the sun, for one thing, and I should much prefer to see industrial development rather than Monte Carlo development. If one is thinking in terms of natural beauty, it must be remembered that one can destroy natural beauty just as easily by turning the area into a fairground as by the kind of development that we have in mind.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) is in his place. He will recall that more than two years ago he and I, with a few of our colleagues, went "doon the water", or down the Clyde, to see what was being done there. He will recall that we had a discussion with various representatives of the Clyde Port Authority. One of the questions asked was, "What are the natural advantages, if any, that we have in this part of the world? Wherein have we something, if we have anything, which would enable us to say that we have a chance of ensuring that the West of Scotland does not decline?". The answer came back at once, "Deep, sheltered water".
Some of my hon. Friends may recall that more than two years ago I spoke about the advantages to Scotland of utilising that deep water shelter. This is not just a question of Ayrshire, or Renfrewshire, or Lanarkshire. We must look at this from the point of view of asking whether we have something which presents us with the possibility of reversing the trends which have been taking place over most of the century. Most of the development has been taking place away from our part of the world. Most of it has been in the South-East. Over the years we have seen a progressive decline in the importance and stature of our part of the world.
If we try to find the reasons for this decline, we discover that geography plays a big part. The South-East is nearer than we are to the big population centres of the Continent. The advantages that we have have tended to be lost, but it seems to me that in the Clyde Estuary as well as in the Forth Estuary, and in the narrow belt of country between, there is the possibility of great industrial development. It is not just a question


of how many jobs can be provided by the construction of an oil refinery. The question is whether the utilisation of what this area possesses can affect development throughout Scotland, right across to the Forth.
Already, there is a modern container berth at Greenock. We understand that liner trains will soon be operating a service to that container berth. The route from here across the Atlantic is the shortest route from these islands to the United States. Container ships, ore carriers, and oil carriers, are getting bigger and bigger all the time. With these big ships it is not just a question of size. The speed of turnround is important, because these large ships are extremely expensive to run. If an expensive container ship is held up in having to get through locks or by tides—one might almost say by industrial disputes—it becomes more and more expensive and the area less attractive.
From that point of view, there is already in the Greenock area the modern container berth, which will handle a ship no matter at what hour of the day or night it arrives and no matter which day of the week. It undertakes to handle the ship and turn it round more quickly than it can be turned round anywhere else. This means vast savings and attractiveness.
If an area becomes attractive from that point of view, it will become attractive in other ways, in terms, for example, of the location of new industry. Reaching back through Renfrewshire and Lanarkshire, we could have the growth, for which we have been looking so long, of diverse industries growing out of well-run and well-sited export and import points. It is a short move of only 30 miles from the Clyde Estuary across to the Forth Estuary, giving access to the North European market, on the one side. and across the Atlantic, on the other. There are great possibilities of considerable industrial development in the whole of the neck of land which makes up that part of the United Kingdom.
Our interest in the project is not a Scottish one as such. This development will not take place if the thought is to serve only the Scottish market. It has to be thought of as a particular advantage possessed by the United Kingdom. There

is no harm in our saying that it might be very advantageous if a shift were now to begin from the South-East back up to the North. That trend happened long ago, but it was reversed. There is no good reason why it should not begin again if this type of development takes place.
That is how I ask the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) to regard the prospect. He has said that he is open to conviction, and I think that he is; he is essentially fair-minded. I appreciate his problem and also the problem of people living in the area rather than holidaymakers who come in. There is something beautiful which should, as far as possible, be retained.
If this is the key to everything, if this is the only area—I do not know; I am prepared to be guided—which will give us the advantages which we need to have and which will reach back over the whole industrial belt of Scotland, it is reasonable to say that decisions should be taken quickly to ensure that this type of development takes place.
I want to say a word concerning steel. In Lanarkshire as a whole, a very reasonable attitude has been adopted. The Lanarkshire County Council has not come out against developments in Renfrewshire or Ayrshire. I hope that when we think in terms of planning for the whole area, Renfrewshire and Ayrshire will be prepared to co-operate.

Mr. Manuel: Ayrshire will. I cannot speak for Renfrewshire.

Mr. Lawson: I hope that they will cooperate in planning the area and will not adopt a dog-in-the-manger attitude because they might think that all the development is to be in that area. The people in Lanarkshire are entitled to think that their interests will be protected.
I am happy that the Lanarkshire Council is ready to co-operate. It wants to see a planning authority covering the whole area and including Lanarkshire, Glasgow and Dunbartonshire as well as Ayrshire and Renfrewshire. That would be a proper planning authority. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will tell us that that is what the Government intend and that they are pushing ahead with it.
On the question of the ore terminal, I am not at this stage pressing for any


siting of steelworks. That is not because I would oppose the idea, but because it is not on the cards that any great steel complex should be sited at Hunterston. What is on the cards is the development of a deep water iron ore terminal.
It is important that the decision on this matter be taken soon for the following reason, quite apart from what might happen with "green field" developments in 1975 or in the 1980s. The present facilities possessed by the steel industry in Scotland are adequate, but they are adequate only at the present time. The iron ore which comes to the steel industry in Scotland has to come right up the Clyde to the general terminus quay. That is an efficient quay which will efficiently handle a ship of up to a maximum of 28,000 tons. My understanding is that it will serve the steel industry in Scotland adequately until 1971 or possibly, 1972. Thereafter, if the present steel industry in Scotland develops, the general terminus quay will become restrictive.
When looking to the future, one cannot put up a deep water terminal in five minutes. By 1970, 1971 or 1972, when the general terminus quay will be no longer adequate for bringing in the necessary ore for the existing industry, we ought to have this deep-water terminal ready to take over. From the viewpoint alone of meeting the needs of existing industry, which we hope to develop, we would expect a decision on the iron ore terminal to be taken very soon.
We know that this decision will not cost the British Steel Corporation anything. The Clyde Port Authority has undertaken to build the project. In that respect, it is reasonable to expect a decision very soon. The Government should accept that the existing steel industry cannot be served beyond 1971 or 1972 by the present import arrangements and that the new ore terminal should be almost ready when that time comes. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will tell us that this development is more than on the cards and is well decided and that the decision will be announced very soon.

5.38 p.m.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: I am glad that we are having this debate today. I am only sorry that it is

not a whole day's debate, because the development of the Clyde affects not only neighbouring constituencies. Its proper development is of vital consequence to the whole of central Scotland.
What does this conception of vital consequence and well-being really mean? I hope that I will not be misunderstood if I ask some probing questions, as I was misunderstood when I did the same thing on the Shipbuilding Industry Bill. Had my questions then been heeded, perhaps the Upper Clyde Shipbuilders would not be in the position they are today. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes. The trouble is that anybody who asks questions about development is always regarded as being the enemy of the people. All development is not necessarily, by any means, beneficial. It may not necessarily be for the good of the people. Presumably, it is for the good of the company, otherwise it would not be sponsored.
Let us look at the proposed development. There is to be oil and there is to be steel. With oil, there is held out the bright prospects of growth of an ancillary petrochemical industry. If oil refining naturally leads to that growth, however, can the Minister explain why there has been such a modest growth at Grangemouth? Surely, if petrochemicals is the natural consequence of oil refining, one would expect it to go ahead speedily where the oil industry is already established, but there is nothing automatic about it. We do not want to be in the same position as the Irish in Bantry Bay who, according to yesterday's Sunday Times, complain in their outspoken way that all they have had out of the oil is "sweet Fanny Adams".
Then there is steel. This is supposed to be absolutely essential for the wealth of Scotland, but the really wealthy areas of Britain have no steel or oil. They leave other mugs to do that sort of dirty work and despoil their countryside with primary industries, while they sensibly grow rich in pleasant surroundings on the proceeds of secondary manufacture. Is not that precisely what Scotland wants—not more primary industry but more secondary industry? For too long, we have been depending on the heavy industries, with all the ugliness and squalor and financial uncertainty which that means.
What we want now, if we are ever to provide satisfactory jobs for the highly-skilled manpower produced by our new universities and technical schools is to go in for more of the new clean industries—electronics and communications—where advanced technology is required. To ignore these modern industries and to go all out for the old heavy industries seems to me to be looking back to the nineteenth century instead of forward to the twenty-first. This is condemning Scotland to industrial insignificance instead of the industrial leadership which she is so clearly capable of, if we can get a better balance and more diversification into our economy.
If there is any substance in my doubts—as my Christian name is Thomas, it is appropriate, perhaps, for me to voice them—surely we are entitled to hear how much money all this proposed development will cost the Government—or. rather, the taxpayer who has to fork out money for the Government. I have tried several times to discover from the Secretary of State in Questions the likely grant to Murco and Chevron. I would be satisfied with a figure to the nearest £1 million, but all I ever get is a complete refusal.
Yet how can the public take part in planning—the Minister said in our debates on the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Bill that this was essential—when they do not know what it would cost the taxpayer. The Minister keeps frowning. He knows what I am talking about. How much Government grant will there be? My calculations are that it will be £7 million for Murco and about £12 million for Chevron, and the number of new jobs created will be only a few hundred.
Am I right or wrong? That is all I want to know and it is the right hon. Gentleman's duty to tell the House these things. It does not seem very good value for money, if my calculations are correct. If there is to be this Government largesse, people might prefer, instead of steel and oil, with a very few jobs, another car factory where, for half the price, thousands of new jobs would be provided and there would be the distinct possibility of a worthwhile spin-off for ancillary industries.
Or perhaps people would prefer that this Government money which is apparently going for very few jobs should be spent on creating a better infrastructure—roads for example—or on improving the amenities of so many of our Scottish cities, which were blighted by the nineteenth century mania for development at any price, so that these down-at-heel areas—Motherwell is one of them—might be able to provide attractions as good as, say, Godalming or Basingstoke for modern industries.

Mr. Lawson: Motherwell has been mentioned twice. Motherwell was built on the basis of the unplanned and uncoordinated society for which the hon. Gentleman stands. It is now becoming a very different place, because it represents some of the things for which my hon. Friend and right hon. Friends stand.

Mr. Galbraith: Exactly. Motherwell was the product of private profit and industry at any price and I do not want to see that happen again. That is why I am afraid of and that is what I am afraid is happening on the Clyde at this very moment.
But suppose I am wrong and my doubts are without foundation. Suppose that oil' and steel, as proposed. really are better for Scotland than cars and electronics—I doubt this—and suppose our infrastructure and amenity are having as much spent on them as is physically possible, suppose, in a word, that the proposed development should go ahead—my question is, should it go ahead on the site proposed or on other sites? Planning, after all, is not just a matter of getting the industry. Any tycoon can get the industry. Planning is getting the industry into the right places so that it does not damage the conditions in which people live, so that these places are not like Motherwell was in the nineteenth century, so that it does not have to go through the metamorphosis which the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) is so pleased about.
The present proposals hardly do that. Why choose Erskine, the site of a new town, and about the only green country between Greenock and Glasgow? On down the coast, the same is true of all the choicest spots—Inverkip, Wemyss Bay, Hunterston, and Portencross. This is all industrial development. As has


been said, it is industrial ribbon development—enough to make any planner seethe—yet the planning committees in two counties give this their blessing.
Why? I will not say what I was tempted to say, which is to quote the Sunday Times about what happened in Ireland, because that might create ill-feeling. But we are told that it would be cheaper to do this on the proposed sites. But cheaper for whom—for the company or for the community? The company does not care two hoots if Glasgow is polluted by Murco; and, despite all their protestations, we know that oil pollution can be serious. At Grangemouth, as was said in the Glasgow Herald, recently the smoke pall extended three or four miles. That is not something which I, as a Member for Glasgow, am prepared to tolerate.
The company does not care if Motherwell becomes a ghost town—the hon. Member for Motherwell does not seem to care either—but that is what would happen if there were new development on green fields at Hunterston. The company does not care if this superb piece of countryside, a lung for the whole of industrial Scotland—many people in this area do not go to Majorca for their holidays but to the country around Largs—is contaminated. The company does not care about these things. The Secretary of State, who just had another yawn, should care about these things—

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): indicated assent.

Mr. Galbraith: The right hon. Gentleman nods, but I do not know whether he will like what I will say next. The only trouble with the right hon. Gentleman is that he was represented on the Metra-Weddle Committee and to that extent he cannot be regarded as being as impartial in the interests of Scotland as he should be. He made a mistake in going on to that Committee.
Any planner coming to this problem without commitment would never dream of putting the refinery downwind of Glasgow. That is simply crazy when there is the whole of Scotland to put it in—hundreds of other areas. This, after all, is the largest concentration of population in the country. No planner would dream of despoiling the wonderful playground which lies between the Cloch and

Seamill, when, a few miles to the south, lies the Ardrossan-Irvine complex, which is already industrialised and has far more space available for growth than can ever exist in the Hunterston-Portencross peninsula.
How much more would it cost, I wonder, to have a terminal at Ardrossan rather than Hunterston? This is an ancillary point to the one put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean). He wanted to know how much it would cost to have the refinery inland. I want to know how much it would cost to have the terminal at Ardrossan.
Since Portencross is regarded as a safe site, there can be no navigational reason against Ardrossan, which is no more exposed than is Portencross. If Ardrossan is more costly from a terminal point of view, how much will be saved in respect of roads and houses to say nothing of the immense social saving in leaving unblemished the fine playground north and south of Largs by using Ardrossan? And if a terminal at Ardrossan is not possible, what about a buoy out at sea and pumping? I gather that such a buoy is planned for the Mersey 20 miles from Liverpool. If it can be done there, why not in the Clyde? It is no longer necessary for cargoes to be manhandled over the side. Even iron ore in palletised form can be pumped in slurry, which seems to me to make Glengarnock, where there is already steel, a possible site. I do not know in whose constituency it is, and I must be careful about mentioning place names.
I will draw my remarks to a conclusion rather more hurriedly than I would otherwise have done, because I realise that other hon. Members wish to take part in the debate. I realise that this is a most difficult problem for the Minister, particularly for the Minister of State, who has been very closely involved, as a Renfrewshire Member. Will he tell us, in his reply, of all the goings on about which we have heard?
We all want to have industrial development, but it must be the right, forward-looking kind of development, not that which takes us back to the nineteenth century. Whatever development we have must be in the right place where it does not contaminate the countryside. We want development coupled with an environment in which it is a delight to


live. Too often in the past in our desire to have any job at any price we have sold our birthright for a mess of pottage. We did that in the nineteenth century and we are paying for it now. It is not necessary to do it today. I pray that we shall not make the same mistake again.

5.53 p.m.

Mr. John Robertson: I was born in Motherwell and I have lived all my days in the very centre of industrial Scotland, and I quite agree that this proposed development on the Clyde should give all hon. Members and, indeed, all people within the area a great deal of concern. When we see the devastation which was wrought in the beautiful valley of the Clyde we are all apprehensive of any proposal to put large-scale industry in the Clyde estuary. I know the Clyde very well and have spent many happy days there, and I should hate to see that area spoiled for the people of Scotland.
But when we say that we have a right to be concerned, I have a feeling that hon. Members—perhaps I am guilty, too—are expressing their concern about the development of a particular part of the Clyde from a constituency point of view. Perhaps I am doing him an injustice, but I have a feeling that the hon. and gallant Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) was expressing that opinion in connection with the development of an iron ore terminal at Ardmore. When the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) said that he did not want the development downwind of Glasgow, was he not stating that he did not want it downwind of Hillhead? Perhaps he would not have expressed so much concern but for that fact. We are all in danger of expressing constituency points of view.
In fact, in the areas concerned this is not a party matter. The struggle in Renfrewshire is not between political parties but between interests. One of the major protagonists of the development on the Clyde in Renfrewshire is one of the leading Tories in the county. Am I not right in saying that of the convenor of the county? This is not a party matter in the places where the argument is occurring.
I, who have lived in Motherwell all my days, believe that there is a great

deal more dust and filth around Motherwell even today than there need be. One of the aspects of planning is that we require some changes in the law which will make it possible for planning authorities and local authorities to insist that industry is not allowed to spew its dirt and filth all over the country. The building of Ravenscraig was bad enough, when a river was put in a pipe. It was the beautiful river Calder, and it was a beautiful valley, too. The devastation which has been wrought since then was not necessary. The red dirt from that sintering plant covers not only all Motherwell but an area miles beyond it, carrying right over the county about 10 miles away where we find the red filth covering the countryside.
When we are considering development of industry on the Clyde, that is the kind of situation which we envisage. If hon. Members want to see the disregard which industry has for amenity, let them go to Motherwell at 2 a.m. any Saturday and see them cleaning out the flues of the furnaces, doing it by the same method as that which they used a hundred years ago, setting it all on fire and burning out the soot and the dirt so that it spreads all over the surrounding community.
I was on the local authority, there, too, and I tried to get some recourse at law to prevent these people from doing such things, but there is no weapon to be used. When the people of West Kilbride, Ardrossan and up to Wemyss Bay are thinking of industry moving to their areas, those are the problems about which they are thinking, and they have every right to object. But need it be so? Must the steelworks spew this dirt all over the place? I do not think so. That is an aspect of the matter about which my right hon. and hon. Friends must think if there is to be an industrial development at Erskine.
I agree with the hon. Member for Hillhead. This project must have caused concern to Glasgow. If what happened at Grangemouth is to happen at Erskine, it will create a big problem for the west end of Glasgow. But need it happen? I do not think so. We have seen pictures of Pittsburgh before and after certain actions were taken—the difference between night and day. The law of the land does nothing to prevent companies from doing that. We have not the


common law powers or the legislative powers to prevent industry from despoiling the countryside.
I agree in essence with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson). We do not want to push constituency interests. Paisley is affected in a way, although not directly. Nevertheless Paisley is affected by the proposed development of an oil refinery in Renfrewshire. But if we are to continue to have a steel industry in Scotland—that may not be important, as the hon. Member for Hillhead suggested, but I think it is—and if we are to build up the secondary industries about which he spoke, we have to make sure that we have the right services and infrastructure to enable us to take advantage of all our natural facilities. One of them is deep water. It would be sheer lunacy to allow that to go to waste. But, like other hon. Members, while I want to see a petro-chemical industry, at the same time I want to see the Clyde preserved as a playground for the people of Scotland. I do not want to see industrial devastation spread into the estuary. I think that it can be done. There is no reason why it should not be done.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: The hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. John Robertson) concentrated, as did other hon. Members, on some of the problems which will flow from the sort of development we are discussing, but I believe that the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) was right to emphasise the fantastic potential of this development.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Mr. Small) spoke of the possibility of the Clyde attracting industrialisation comparable with that of Rotterdam. Hon. Members who have visited Rotterdam and have seen the potential of port industrialisation, in addition to the advantages that flow from port developments, such as oil refineries, will be aware of the importance of the subject before the House today.
Without wishing to be unfair to Rotterdam, it should be made clear that the maximum size of ship which can be berthed there by direct approach is 130,000 tons. I say this not to denigrate Rotterdam, but simply to point out the limit of the port's capacity, which will

not be capable of being increased by dredging. One has the simple fact of depth of water of nearby shipping lines such as in the already congested English Channel.
The proposition which faces Clydeside is not comparable with Rotterdam, for we need not be restricted to ships with a maximum tonnage of 130,000. It will be possible for us to cater for ships of 200,000 and, later, even 500,000 tons. It would, in these circumstances, be crazy and indefensible from Scotland's point of view if we ruled out this development, not least because industrialisation of this kind could revolutionise the West of Scotland.
The hon. Member for Motherwell was correct in saying that th s must be a pleasant change for the Secretary of State. In the past, Secretaries of State have had to find ways and means of attracting industry to Scotland, and in some cases industry has had to be dragged there kicking and screaming. In this case, industry is clamouring to get in, and it must, therefore, be pleasant for the Secretary of State to be faced with the problem of deciding what industries should be allowed in and where they should go.
I wish to concentrate on the steel aspect of the issue. The hon. Member for Motherwell said that this was not merely a question of how o expand the steel industry of Scotland, but of safeguarding existing steelworks because the facilities at the general terminus are limited and the problems which will flow from this limitation are b mind to arise sooner than we imagine. I understand that last year the general terminus handled just over 2½ million tons of iron ore. It is an efficient terminal and there is some room for expansion, but I understand that the terminus could not take more than 3½ million tons.
It was estimated, before the change to nationalisation, that by 1975 Colvilles would be taking 4,700,000 tons. This means that even in the present situation. and discounting the possibility of a new steel works in the Clydeside area, we could, long before 1975, need additional facilities for handling steel because of the volume of iron ore coming in. Apart from the sheer volume of iron ore that will come in, there is the question of the size of ships, for the general terminus


can take vessels up to only 28,000 to 29,000 tons.
A new generation of vessels is taking to the seas and this change has come about in a remarkably short time. For example, while in 1966 there were only half-a-dozen or so ore-carriers of 60,000 tons and over throughout the world, by 1968 the number had rocketed to almost 100. The reason for this change is simple. The steel industry has been transformed by transportation.
At a recent conference in America the leaders of the Japanese steel industry explained the future of the steel industry from their point of view. Mr. Yamada, the vice-chairman of one of Japan's greatest steel works (the Yawata Steel Co.) said that, from Japan's point of view, steel had become largely a transportation industry. In an interesting speech, he pointed out that when three 50,000 dead-weight ton carriers were built in 1952 many industrialists in Japan and elsewhere doubted whether the Japanese steel industry could use vessels of such a size because of Japan's inadequate deep water facilities. Japan has overcome that problem by large-scale dredging.
We must bear in mind the production of iron ore that is taking place throughout the world. New markets for iron ore have been opening up. For example, in 1965 Australia exported only 230,000 tons of iron ore. Only two years later that country was exporting 9 million tons. With this enormous development, bigger and ever bigger ships are being built. In addition, ore supplies are coming from markets further away, making cheaper shipping by the use of larger ships inevitable. In 1960, the Japanese steel industry made an average journey of 4,000 miles to bring in its iron ore. Seven years later the average journey was 6,000 miles.
We on the Clyde now have a unique national asset because of our deep water. We have many advantages: first, of being able to take big ships; secondly, a market which is near; thirdly, a flat coastal site; fourthly, suitable reserves of labour—overall advantages which cannot be rivalled by any other area in Western Europe. It would be criminal if we did not grasp this opportunity.
Scotland has in the past had a prosperous steel industry. It has also had some natural disadvantages, but these are fast disappearing. One disadvantage which held up development in Scotland and which persuaded some steel leaders not to expand over the Border was the price of coking coal, a subject which we have discussed at length in recent weeks in Committee upstairs. This disadvantage held up the development of Scotland's steel works because we had to pay between 7s. 7d. and 35s. a ton more for coking coal compared with other parts of the United Kingdom.
With the building of new plant and the change-over to oil, what has been a disadvantage could become an advantage. Dearer coking coal hindered us. Our deep water can enable us to bring in oil at perhaps the cheapest price of any comparable steel works complex in the United Kingdom. Instead of fuel acting as a disadvantage, oil through our deep water port could rapidly help us.
At one time the leaders of the steel industry thought that green field development would not be required before 1975. However, the rapid advance of technological change has altered this situation, mainly because of the new techniques of making steel direct from the minerals without using coking ovens, blast furnaces and oxygen convertors. The possibility of direct reduction in new steel works is very real.
It must be emphasised that we need a quick decision on an ore terminal. We are aware of the problems which may arise, both geographical and amenity, but for the steel industry of Scotland this ore terminal is urgently needed. It is urgent if we consider the steel industry as it is, let alone the natural expansion which will occur. This development is crucial if we are to think of expanding and exploiting the potential which larger ships afford, including cheaper transportation, cheaper oil supplies and other technological advances.
My hon. Friends have been right to emphasise that we are discussing something very important, because the whole of the industrial future of Scotland will largely hinge on this development. It may be that, as in Rotterdam, the initial developments will be small in job production, and they may be expensive in


themselves, but they will generate enormous wealth and many new industries.
If we are to look at the possibilities of port industrialisation, we could do no better than, as has been suggested visit Rotterdam and see the enormous growth in port industrialisation stemming from the one basic factor of having a good port and exploiting it to the full. Despite its many limitations, Rotterdam has achieved so much. The potential of the Clydeside is unique, and it would be detrimental to the interests of Scotland as a whole if we did not exploit that potential to the full, consistent with preserving what amenity is necessary. Not to allow this potential to be exploited to the full would be almost criminal.
It is right that hon. Members who represent constituencies which will be affected should emphasise forcibly that the amenity of those areas must not be destroyed, that the rights of individuals must be protected, and that there must be an opportunity for objections to be made and heard. Nevertheless, there is a danger that when we talk of industrial expansion we tend to think in terms, and I do not think that I am being unfair, of Motherwell in the 1850s; in terms of dirty, smoky works, of chimney stacks, of slums and tenements.
The fact is that all our legislation on industrial health and safety, and the technological advance that we sometimes discount far too much, will ensure that the industrial pattern of the future need not of itself be the industrial pattern of the past and that we can have industrial expansion consistent with preserving amenity.
I was recently talking to someone about the possibility of development in the Highlands. He said, "What is wrong with the Highlands? I think that they are splendid. It is a lovely area. You have splendid amenity and scenery." That would be quite true if we had no one living in the Highlands, no industry there—not one job there, but it is not the kind of Central Scotland we have at present, and it is not the kind that we must have for the future. We have a unique opportunity and a unique national asset, and for Scotland's sake I hope that they will both be exploited to the full.

6.14 p.m.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: The debate is particularly timely because it has been conducted against a background of public debate already taking place in the areas likely to be affected by these proposals. I hope that the one message that goes out from the House today is that hon. Members in all parts, regardless of political party, support the concept of industrial development in Scotland, of industrial development in the Clyde Estuary, so that we may utilise the potentialities which exist there.
While we all, naturally, have reservations in detail about the kind of development and the type of industry as they will affect the particular parts of the Clyde Estuary we know best, and the interests involved, the whole feeling of all those who have taken part in the debate is that whilst we must respect those reservations, we must not, at the same time, lose the opportunities for the future industrial development of this part of Scotland.
The development that may come to the Clyde Estuary and that part of Scotland must be looked at in the far wider context that the benefits flowing from it will spread to the much wider areas of Scotland. On the other hand, while benefits from this development will stretch to other areas of Scotland, if we make the wrong decisions, and site industry in the wrong places, the bad results of doing so will not just be confined to these areas. Other areas of Scotland will share those, also. We must remember that people from many other areas of Scotland seek to enjoy the amenities and benefits of the Clyde Estuary.
We have to utilise the natural potentialities we have in Scotland. We have done so in the past, and it is on this that the earlier industrial foundations of Scotland were built. We would be failing in our duty to our generation if we did not exploit this potential. The hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. John Robertson) used a most telling phrase when he said that it would be lunacy to let the opportunity pass. We have the opportunities and we must develop them to the best use, not only of our generation but of future generations.
We may question some of the industrial opportunities. I do not intend now to go over many of the arguments about the benefits of the deep water terminal. These were gone into by my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell) and other speakers. I do not intend to go into the detail of the future of iron and steel: other hon. Members have described the importance of developing those two industries.
With respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith), while some may say that we would like Scotland to be like the South-East of England, and other areas of Britain, I am afraid that I must say, "I wonder". Some of the congestion, for instance that I see in the so-called prosperous areas—

Mr. Galbraith: My point is that it is sometimes difficult to get these new, highly-skilled scientific workers to go to Scotland. They are quite willing to stay in places like Godalming and Basingstoke, but they are not willing to go to the Scottish industrial centres because it is so ugly and horrid to live in them. That is what I want to prevent.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: We want to preserve the best of each. We want to exploit industrial development and, at the same time, provide amenities in terms of pleasant living and environment, and ease of access to recreation. Ease of access to recreation is one thing that we certainly can offer, as compared with any other area in the United Kingdom.
People can move from almost any part of Scotland into the most beautiful countryside, whether in pursuit of sporting interests or just to enjoy the peace and solitude they find there. Very long journeys are not involved there, as they are in parts of England. In the potential of our industrial development and in our heritage of the countryside, of ease of access to recreation we have something that is utterly priceless, and we must not do anything to destroy it.
One of the features of the debate has been the large number of questions which has been raised. I appreciate that many of these questions have been of a local nature and that it will be difficult for the Minister of State to answer them because

they may be the subject of public inquiry. We will forgive him if he does not answer all the local questions in detail. At the same time, let us be quite plain in stating that we want answers to the bigger and more general issues and questions. He will appreciate that what has been expressed today is, amongst many other things, uncertainty about what is to happen to particular areas and this will be the subject, eventually, of public inquiry. There is uncertainty also about the bigger issues which we are now discussing.
I hope that the Minister of State understands that where there is uncertainty it can be an obstacle to progress. There is always far greater fear of the unknown than of the known. Unless we are absolutely clear about what is in the mind of the Government and what kind of procedures will be followed immediately, a great deal more objection and obstacles can be raised to the kind of progress which we all want to see.
The debate has given the opportunity for the Secretary of State to learn what hon. Members think about the general issues and the local ones. On many great industrial developments we have had the help of work done by the Clyde Estuary Development Group and the Metra-Weddle Report and the Scottish Council. We should pay tribute to that work. We are able to come to this debate with some of the ground work already done on the problem. We should praise the quality of the work done and the way in which the facts have been presented.
Speed is utterly vital in dealing with questions of planning and industrial inquiries. As has often been said, when an industrial inquiry arises the greater the speed with which it can be dealt the more likely it will be that the interest of the inquirer is maintained and the more likely it will be that in the end the project can be translated into industrial development. If we do not realise the urgency in all these matters we may lose many economic developments; we shall be overtaken by events. Already, some large bulk carriers of oil or ore are under construction and unless we have facilities ready to utilise those carriers we in Scotland may be left behind. That makes it essential for us to do our homework and all the preparation for these changes.
At the same time, however, we have to remember that too much speed can become a danger. We must not make speed an excuse for inadequate preparation. I mention the inquiry about the aluminium smelter at Invergordon. The main burden of the objection there was not against the principle and the concept, but whether it was the right place for the smelter. This point was made at the time by the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie). People wanted to know whether it was the right place for the establishment and, at the same time, there was feeling that if the inquiry was not carried forward quickly the whole development might be lost.
Although that was so then, at this stage we have not quite the same urgency and therefore we should not use urgency as an excuse for inadequate preparation and not making sure that all who object have their objections fully explored. There is no objection to the principle of development, but opposition in certain practical cases. Hon. Members want to know that all the suggestions have been looked at properly.
It is also important to look at the wider nature of the problem. It is not merely a problem for Ayrshire and Renfrewshire, but one for Glasgow and the Forth ports, if we are looking towards Europe, and a problem for the whole United Kingdom when we look at it in the context of the United Kingdom steel industry. It also concerns those people who come to the Clyde for their holidays. For these reasons it is absolutely vital to look at the problem in the wider context and not in the narrow confines of Ayrshire and Renfrewshire.
There is the vital position of Glasgow as the main focus point of industry and economic development within the area. Glasgow is already facing tremendous problems of renewal and economic growth. Neither the services provided nor the problems Glasgow faces can be contained within its boundaries. The problems for Glasgow must come within this whole question of development of the Clyde Estuary whether we are concerned with economic development, industrial development, or the social questions of housing, and so on, which Glasgow finds so difficult to solve through its own resources. We must think wide and think big.
We are confronted with a new situation, an industrial challenge of a development, the greatest we have had to face in modern times. In terms of scale, and the effect that it can have on future generations, this challenge is as great as any we have faced in the last century. A new situation demands a new approach and new methods. This is fundamental if we are to generate new economic growth. We must make sure that our methods of planning and deciding on what form development should take are up to date and capable of dealing with the size of the problem we face.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn said, the challenge we face gives us a test of adaptability. Can we adapt present procedures to meet this challenge and to avoid duplication and delay? These are questions which we put to ourselves and which we put to the Minister of State.
As my hon. Friend also said, one problem which worries us is whether existing planning machinery—not just the procedure of going to planning committees and public inquiries which give an opportunity for local objections to be heard—are capable of handling a concept of this size. We have to make quite certain that we have some body with proper oversight and control so that the parts of a development which cut across existing planning authority boundaries can be brought together to form one whole cohesive development making sense in the context of the wider area concerned.
Is the Minister of State satisfied that the Clyde Valley Planning Advisory Committee is the body which can properly do this job? I am concerned about whether it is not too much an advisory body and whether we should have something with more power, more teeth and executive functions. Dangers can arise from an advisory ad hoc body of this nature. Who is to pay for the plans and the investigations it may commission? We do not want arguments to arise from constituent authorities on problems of that nature. There are also problems over ratification of decisions.
We spoke earlier about the need for speed. If through an ad hoc body members have to go back to their local authority to get decisions ratified, and then have to come back to discuss them


again, we must be careful that the whole procedure does not become clogged up. Decisions must be arrived at quickly.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: The Clyde Valley Advisory Committee is a democratic organisation that is representative of all the local authorities. We should take all the local authorities with us rather than force something on them from the top.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. We must make sure that the body is representative of all the local authorities. But the body for which I am arguing must be of more than an advisory nature and also must be representative of people in the area.
I ask the Minister of State to look closely at this matter. On the one hand it must be a body that is quick and effective in taking decisions since this is vitally important if development is to go ahead. Secondly, as the hon. Member for Rutherglen rightly said, we must be equally sure that it is democratic and representative of those bodies from which it is formed. These are the critical matters that face us at present. The most crtical of all is the matter of under what auspices planning and co-ordination will take place.
In this whole enterprise we must profit from past mistakes. We must look at 19th century Lanarkshire and learn from what happened there. Equally, we must look at the present mistakes in 20th century Midlands and in the South-East of England and learn also from those, so that in Scotland we do not create those sorts of conditions.
In all parts of planning we must make certain that we are the masters of planning and not its servants. At the same time, we must not allow ourselves to be put into a corner by too urgent a time scale. Wrong decisions cannot be justified merely on the ground of urgency.
Last, but not least, let us remember that we are dealing with people, people in towns, in the villages, on the farms and in the houses. We are dealing with people and the way in which these development proposals will affect them. By all means let us grasp the economic opportunities, but let us create something of which we can be proud and for which we shall not

be cursed by future generations because we have done it badly. If we can marry these two aims together economic opportunity, on the one hand, and concern for people, on the other, we shall achieve development of which not only Scotland but Britain can be proud.

6.35 p.m.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mahon): Both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I very much welcome this debate. My right hon. Friend asks the House to excuse him for his not being here at the beginning of the debate, but he was in Scotland on business not unrelated to our discussion. The debate is welcome to the Government because we can put on record a number of things that it is not easy to make clear in the country. A large number of the current embarrassments and doubts are the result of a misunderstanding of the position and the fear that decisions are to be made without due consultation and the due process of law.
The first of the three objectives which we are pursuing at present is to process as quickly as possible the planning applications which are already lodged. The second objective is to encourage the submission of yet more industrial applications to provide yet more jobs; and I will return to this matter later in my remarks. The third is to encourage the process of joint and comprehensive planning so as to provide a framework within which decisions on individual planning applications can be taken quickly and with a balanced regard to all the factors.
Almost every speech today, with one or two notable exceptions, has understandably hedged its bets by calling, on the one hand, for speed and, on the other, for care; on the one hand, for urgency and, on the other, for proper examination. I am tempted to fall back on the old saying that in this case the best is the enemy of the good.
It is not often that I get the chance to congratulate almost without qualification the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) for his fine, red-blooded speech. No bets were hedged, and there was no nonsense in his speech. It was a clarion call for industrial development in Scotland which


moved the hearts of many of us on this side of the House.
I cannot say the same for some other speeches which have been made, some of which were more blue-blooded than red-blooded. There may have been one or two misunderstandings today over the nature of planning and who are the planners and who are the planned. There is a constant call on everybody's lips for a comprehensive plan, as if by divine decree we could determine the ultimate industrial pattern of Scotland for the next 100 years and proceed in all wisdom to will exactly what will happen, when and where, during that time. That, of course, is impossible.
There is a cry that we must have a comprehensive plan, an organisation—that is the great word—with "teeth", whatever that means. I do not think that the objectors would like an organisation with teeth that might bite. We are told that what is wanted is an organisation that is capable of making and implementing the plan. But the preparation of any kind of plan is not a single act; it is a continuous process with at least as much of the information and analysis coming up from the grass roots as coming from the Government.
The Government are in a unique position which is denied to bodies and persons situated at a lower tier of government of the country, or, for that matter, to private citizens or heads of industry to understand many of the processes. The plan must grow gradually. It must be prepared with the aims of local people in mind and it must identify and assess the most important local issues.
The Government, with the local planning authorities concerned in this area, have already spent five years analysing in detail the land-use needs likely to be generated locally in various sectors of West Scotland. In Renfrewshire, the land use study up to 1980 took 18 months; in Lanarkshire, the study took two years; and in Ayrshire it is almost finished after 15 months of work. More recently, we have started a comprehensive exercise on the north-east of Glasgow. These are all land-use studies carried out in great detail and evolved in agreement between authorities; they touch on housing and industrial needs, schools and all the rest.
They are an important part of a jigsaw and they have been carried out or are in process of being carried out. They are being carried out in relation to the various land uses and take into consideration individual matters of concern in the areas. In the case of Renfrewshire there is the fourteenth amendment, which is on a par with the Hunterston amendment in relation to Ayr County Council's decision to have industrial development in a certain part of the county. That was settled a number of months ago.
In all these exercises we have tried with the local authorities to make provision for the problems of the great City of Glasgow. The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) rightly emphasised this point. Glasgow has not only problems connected with housing. The present administration is undergoing a considerable agony of choice over what it should do in the city in terms of building. But it is clear that whatever administration runs the city it will have to house Glaswegians outside the city boundaries. We shall have to find jobs to match the houses and must have regard to the inevitable contraction of older industries which is bound to take place.
The studies have provided a basis of information about prospective land use needs and a range of proposals through which those needs are to be met. In addition, the Government took a leading part along with the Clyde Port Authority and the local planning authorities most directly concerned in promoting the Clyde Estuary Development Study. Incidentally, some of these authorities are members of the Clyde Valley Planning Advisory Committee. I shall come back to that.
This study made a general analysis of the implications for West Central Scotland of the trend towards larger ships and the need for deep water. We had a well documented speech from the hon. Member for Cathcart in relation to steel in this respect. The analysis in the Metra-Weddell Report is interesting and thought-provoking, but I think that many people will agree that it was not unexpected in the sense that it called for sudden and radical changes in the plans which we have been evolving over the


last five years. It may be argued, nevertheless, that so far we have had only a series of rather general documents and we lack the organisation to fill out those documents in detail and take action on them thereafter.
I accept that, ideally, we should have reorganised local government, but that will take time to do thoroughly. If hon. Members opposite are taking any comfort from the fact that they put up proposals, albeit not generally agreed, in 1963, I ask them to look at their proposals again and see how irrelevant they are to today's problems. If we had had reform on that scale, according to those 1963 proposals, we should still be bedevilled by the difficulty which we have now of cohesion in planning. To be fair to hon. Gentlemen opposite, they made proposals in 1963 at the same time as they set up the Planning Advisory Group, the group whose recommendations we have almost translated into legislative form. As a new concept of planning, it has been endorsed by the party opposite, I am glad to say, as well as being sponsored by the Government.
It has been said—the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) argued this earlier today—that we might, perhaps, look at the idea of amalgamation of local planning authorities. The trouble with the word "amalgamation" is this: does it mean compulsory amalgamation, voluntary amalgamation, or both? No one mentioned that. No one went into the question of how we achieve amalgamation. However, running through the hon. Gentleman's speech was a clear implication that there should be one planning authority. I am not in a position to comment on that at the moment. Instinctively, I am rather attracted to it, but as a Minister I cannot comment on it at this time, particularly with the Royal Commission on Local Government about to report.
We could under 1947 Act powers go forward to amalgamation. This would be questioned by many local authorities. There are some authorities, for instance, Lanarkshire, as my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) said, which have some enthusiasm for closer liaison with their partners, or perhaps even for fusion—that remains to be seen—but there is virtually no enthusiasm

for amalgamation which is in any degree compulsory.
There remains the course that, between now and the reform of local government, we encourage joint co-operation between groups of authorities. Until recently, this encouragement was on a county basis, taking an initial stock of problems in particular sectors of West Central Scotland. There is an existing organisation, to which reference has been made, which could do the job necessary between now and the implementation of Wheatley. I refer to the Clyde Valley Planning Advisory Committee.
In recent years, unfortunately, the Committee has not been very active, and its present terms of reference are, perhaps, rather vague. It did a good job in its own time, but, like many institutions, it has tended not to keep up with the times. Also, to be fair to the Clyde Valley Planning Advisory Committee, it has no staff other than the part-time service of some very devoted officers, one of whom serves Glasgow Corporation, namely, the Depute Town Clerk, Mr. Murdoch. In recent months, the Government have pressed the Committee to revise its terms of reference, to provide itself with a small full-time staff, and to set about the task of bringing together what has been done already.
The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn asked about the way the Committee operates. Discussions are still in progress. I am to meet the Committee again on 10th October. The discussions are on the basis that the Committee will adopt the new terms of reference which I suggested on 14th March and will work towards preparation of a comprehensive advisory plan for West Central Scotland. This will cost money, as the hon. Gentleman implied, but very little in relation to the resources and the number of local authorities involved.
I agree that the Committee is advisory only and by itself it has no powers to impose on individual authorities the plans which it recommends, but the Secretary of State has power in that he may indicate that he will approve—I have said this to the Committee—only development plans which are within the framework devised by the Joint Planning Advisory Committee and approved by the Secretary of State. Also, the Secretary of State has


power to direct local authorities to submit such plans. We do not want to do this if we can possibly avoid it. We prefer to proceed by persuasion, and there is a great fund of good will in the Committee. It is considering these matters and will, I hope, give a favourable reply on 10th October.
The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn expressed doubt about the lack of an economic consultative group in West Central Scotland. But West Central Scotland is already half of Scotland, and the Scottish Economic Planning Council takes an active concern in all matters in West Central Scotland. West Central Scotland cannot be compared with the Highlands, with the South-West or even with the larger Tayside area; it is the direct concern of the Secretary of State.
It is fair to add that we have put this to the Clyde Valley Planning Advisory Committee and that it will in the reorganised Committee consult actively a wide range of interests in the course of preparing any future plans, especially interests of an industrial and commercial character. It is our hope that the Committee will arrange for regular advice by a small standing group of men eminent in the economic life of West Central Scotland, some of whom may already be members of the Scottish Economic Planning Council, which will ensure direct liaison with that body.
There is no duplication between the Clyde Valley Planning Advisory Committee and the Clyde Estuary Development Group. We saw the Clyde Estuary Development Group called into being specifically to deal with the short-term pressures—the welcome pressures, I agree with the hon. Member for Cathcart. This is an unusual situation for the Secretary of State to be in, to have an embarrassment of riches instead of having to go out and seek new industries and attract them to Scotland. This is a fine development which we very much welcome. That is why the Clyde Estuary Development Group took on responsibility, and why we accepted some responsibility in finance and in advice for securing that the report was made promptly.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I am grateful to the Minister of State. We have been most interested in what he has had to say in reply to my questions concerning

the Advisory Committee and his discussions with it, but it looks as though the process will be slow. He is not to have a reply until October. It still looks as though the Committee will have very little staff, even though, I agree, its present unpaid staff are extremely conscientious. Something more will be needed.

Dr. Mabon: In that case, something should have been done a long time ago. I cannot bludgeon the authorities. The Secretary of State cannot compel them. I was disappointed in June that they did not agree, and I thought that two or three months was a fair enough time for them to consider the matter. However, they did not agree, and I have asked them specifically to come back mandated on 10th October. None the less, the implications of the organisation for the longer-term are not specifically relevant to the applications which we have before us.
I should like to dwell at some length on the position of the steel industry, but it would be unwise of me to go into many details. A large number of points are already known to the House. In the course of the present exercise in the steel industry, the Scottish and North-West Group of the Corporation put forward proposals to the British Steel Corporation involving substantial investment on the Clyde. They were summarised in the Metra-Weddle Report as follows. First, an ore terminal. Second, there should be iron and steel making facilities. I agree with the hon. Member for Cathcart and my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. John Robertson) that these steel making facilities are not necessarily the satanic mills of long ago or even of Ravenscraig, and I agree, too, that it is not an excuse for turning away industry simply to argue that industry pollutes. We should control industry so that it does not pollute, so that its offensiveness can be reduced to a minimum.
If the objectors and others in the consistuency of the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) were to see the kind of proposals which both the oil company and the B.S.C. may be considering at a later stage, many of them would realise that they are not as offensive as might appear from some lurid reports appearing in certain parts of the Press. The hon. Gentleman cannot take my word for it, of course; he


must find these things out for himself. But this is the purpose of the Ayr County Council's amendment to the development plan. It must be the subject of public inquiry, when all the questions asked today will, no doubt, be asked more cogently than they have been today because they will be followed up in cross-examination. Therefore, many of the doubts can be allayed and some issues perhaps clarified. I would not deny that many of the developments involve some sacrifice, but they need not involve the extensive sacrifice—

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: rose—

Dr. Mabon: I shall not give way. I have a great deal to say. I have been very fair. I did not rise at the beginning of the debate, so as to give the maximum time for other Members, but I have so much to reply to that I would be wrong not to seek to comment on the different stages of each application, apart from giving the general background, which I have tried to do so far.
The third point of the proposals of the Scottish and North West Group of the corporation, was that in the longer term the group envisaged the capacity building up to about five million tons per annum with a completely integrated steel making and finishing plant. This is all very important. It is not a question of a net loss of jobs to Lanarkshire, and a positive gain to Ayrshire, with nothing for Scotland. It might mean the permanent loss of jobs to Scotland if we were not willing to move into up-to-date plants and activities.
We cannot look around for what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) delightfully called clean, white-collar jobs. We do this as well, but we are not satisfied to say that we have the finest selection of the electronic industry in the United Kingdom, which we have. We have expanded more in electronics than any other part of the United Kingdom. We are very glad of this, but it is not the end of our efforts. We are not willing to say that we should stick only to labour-intensive industries. It would be wrong to have Scotland entirely labour-intensive. Some of the most modern examples of industry are capital-intensive, and must be of their nature. It is not a fair argument to try to work out every penny of investment and say that

it costs so much per job. It depends on the kind of industrial mix one is trying to achieve in Scotland. My right hon. Friend would be shocked to hear it argued that we should turn away any form of capital-intensive industry which would be of advantage to Scotland.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire was sent an internal minute with his letter. The letter was sent by a civil servant on behalf of Lord Hughes, by whom it was dictated, in his absence. It was sent in an earnest desire to serve the hon. Gentleman and his constituent, and to give him as prompt a reply as possible. While I liked "Eastern Approaches", I do not think that this cloak-and-dagger attitude should be taken into the Western approaches. The hon. Gentleman did himself a grave disservice today by reading out the minute. If I had been in his place, I would have sent it back. It did not cause any offence. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was not kind enough to read out the letter. It was much more important to do that than to read out the extract, which was highly selective.
If the hon. Gentleman is trying to argue that we should be worried about the presence of a nuclear power station, he is right, but not to the extent that he implied. I hope that he will make amends by publishing the letter in the Ardrossan and Saltcoats Herald and other local newspapers, so that people do not get the false impression that there is any danger. From his speech one would never believe that Hunterston A is being accompanied by Hunterston B, which is three times larger, and much more modern and sophisticated and important to the economy of Scotland than even Hunterston A. But we shall not for a moment be worried, though in the old Windscale days, when we were worried about nuclear reactors, this would have worried us considerably. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the MetraWeddle Report again he will see that the consultants there deliberately took this into account.
The Murco planning application was already before us before the Clyde Estuary Development Study began. From the company's point of view the application was urgent. It would have been a hardship to the company to delay consideration of it further, and the Clyde


Estuary Development Study Report did not suggest that the remaining recommendations would be affected if the Murco application were treated in isolation.

Sir F. Maclean: The Minister suggested that I did not send back to his noble Friend the minutes to which he referred. I did so immediately, and sent his noble Friend a personal letter with them, so he should have been aware that they had come back and that I had read them—and, naturally, that I had taken a copy. What does the Minister expect? If I were to read out the rest of the whole lot of minutes this would cause the Minister greater embarrassment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] What I did, having read the minutes, was to put down a question to the Secretary of State, giving him a chance to make public—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a very long intervention.

Dr. Mabon: I am very sorry that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman. That is the first time he has not been fair to me in debate. I am very glad that he returned the minute, but I am ashamed of him for taking a copy and reading it out in the House.
I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman, but I shall leave that matter. I have only five minutes left, and shall not give way again. He could make amends for the benefit of his constituents—not to apologise to my noble Friend, myself or anybody else—by publishing the letter sent to him on 1st May, so that the balance or argument on this important matter can be properly assessed.
It would have been a hardship to Murco to ask it to delay until everything was absolutely pat. We have had an inquiry, and no one can say that it was the shortest on record or that the objections were not fully ventilated. The matter is now being assessed by the Reporter. I am not in a position to say when the report will be submitted to my right hon. Friend, or what the result will be.
An application has been submitted for an oil-fired power station at Inverkip. It has been received from the South of Scotland Electricity Board and advertised, and I hope that it will be practicable

and reasonable to arrange an inquiry into the objections to the proposal early in September. It may be argued that the inquiry into the power station project should have been combined with consideration of other issues on the lower Clyde Estuary. But in the interests of adequate electricity supplies it is important to examine as soon as possible the project, which the Electricity Board is convinced represents the best solution to the problem of further electricity supply in the area, supply which is urgent for industry, and not just for residential purposes.
It does not follow that co-ordinated consideration can be given to different issues only if they are all submitted to the same public inquiry. Often the Government find it better to focus attention on issues in a manageable form. If the inquiry into the Inverkip proposal throws up a need to take further evidence into account, from the later inquiry into the Hunterston Development Plan Amendment or from elsewhere, this can be arranged. However, the Government are satisfied that there is nothing to be gained, and perhaps something to be lost, from delaying detailed examination of the Electricity Board's proposal.
This brings us to the Development Plan Amendment for Hunterston recently submitted by Ayr County Council. We have before us an application by the Chevron Oil Company for a jetty and refinery with provision for a petrochemical ancillary at Hunterston. Some way of processing this application soon will have to be found.
We have also to recognise the need for an ore terminal to replace Great Terminus Quay. The Government thought it right and proper that we should see this examination being taken over a larger area than simply each individual application in turn, because some impinge on the others, and it would be right in this area to make this assessment. We are by no means oblivious to the opposition of amenity societies and the fears of many residents.
This is why I was very pleased to meet, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, our good friend Viscount Muirshiel, who is now chairman of the Scottish Civic Trust and head of the recently formed Clyde Estuary Amenity Council. We had a very useful meeting, when we agreed that the


Amenity Council could help to process objections and advise objectors, so that it could appear at inquiries and put forward constructive suggestions on these difficulties, rather than have a great deal of widespread objections, some of which cancelled each other out, were basically negative, and involved many ordinary people in costs that they could ill afford.
All the questions of administrative machinery, amenity and natural advantage are to be seen against the background of economic change in the west of Scotland. Most of our unemployed in Scotland are in the west and it is already clear that we are faced with quite substantial losses of jobs yet to come. I give the largest example we know. There will be a fall of nearly 2,900 workers between now and August, 1970, among those employed by Upper Clyde Shipbuilders, even with the group being very successful, as we all wish it to be. We cannot avoid further pit closures sooner or later. There are immediate closures in industry, such as that of Babcock and Wilcox, which will come to an end at Dalmuir at the end of the year. We must not lose the skills which thus become available and we must curb still further the number of migrants who go over the Border and overseas.
To do all this we have to create new jobs and it would be irresponsible today to pretend that this can be done without replacing some green fields by factories and offices. Of course, we must do this efficiently and responsibly. This is the objective of the machinery of consultation, discussion and decision, which I have described.

Mr. Ernest Armstrong: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — DENTURES AND SPECTACLES (CHARGES)

7.1 p.m.

Lord Balniel: I beg to move,
That this House regrets the muddle which has surrounded the proposed introduction of higher charges for dentures and spectacles.
In this debate, regretting the muddle which has surrounded the proposed introduction of higher charges for dentures and spectacles, we want a few straightforward answers to some questions. The points which we wish to put and on which we need answers are quite simple.
Why has there been this confusion? When will the Regulations be introduced? When will the new charges come into force? What will the money be used for? Is the principle of charges to be kept as a permanent feature of the financing of the National Health Service, or is it to be temporary? Is this proposal still expected to bring in about £ 1·7 million during the current financial year?
Recently, in debate, I said that, just as there was a Beaufort scale for wind forces, so the Government are creating a Crossman scale for chaos. Optimistically, I went on to say that I imagined that the happy period of farce which had characterised the administration of his Department so far would soon be coming to an end. I must confess that I had seriously underestimated the right hon. Gentleman's ability to cause chaos. Within a few days of that speech, the national newspapers were full of reports that the Government had decided to defer the increased charges on dentures and spectacles.
The Secretary of State reminds me of one of those old Russian tumbledown dolls which one tries to stand upright but which always rolls over on one side or the other. I believe that they have a weight at the bottom, but are light in the head. Whatever the personal characteristics of the Secretary of State, the policy in relation to the proposed new charges for dentures and spectacles has rolled wildly from one course to the other. The House has a duty to deplore the muddle of his administration and to demand an explanation today as to what is the reason.
I do not want to spend too much time on the distant past, but it is right that we should look at this matter in its proper perspective. It was the decision of the late Hugh Gaitskell—and I quote from his own words—
… to introduce a modest charge in respect of some dental work and optical services."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th April, 1951; Vol. 486, c. 852.]
It was a decision which precipitated a Cabinet crisis. It was then that the right hon. Gentleman the present Prime Minister summoned up his principles and resigned from the Cabinet.
I will not weary the House with multitudinous quotations from the Prime Minister's speeches, both at that time and subsequently. But the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State stood at the Prime Minister's right hand in those days to defend him. It will be interesting to see whether the Prime Minister records his vote when these Regulations are introduced.
During those important debates on Mr. Gaitskell's decision, the Secretary of State said that the people
… will have to submit to a national means test in order to be able to get free spectacles and free services … What we are doing here is to extend the principle to men in work, and that seems to me a grievous violation of principle.
It is not my job to act as agent-provocateur for the Left wing of the Labour Party.

Hon. Members: Where are they?

Lord Balniel: In their absence, perhaps I might remind them of the peroration of the Secretary of State on this great issue of principle in 1951:
I hope that in future it will not be the actions of the Front Bench but the reactions of Labour back benchers which will be the precedent for future social policy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th May, 1951; Vol. 487, c. 1692–3.]

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Has my hon. Friend noticed that there are only eight Front Benchers and only eight back benchers present on the Government side to deal with this very important subject?

Lord Balniel: It is kind of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) to call that matter to my attention, but it is blatantly apparent to every hon. Member

present that the Left wing prefers to be absent from this most inconvenient debate.
Of course, that quotation was a long time ago. Much has happened since then. Many deeply-held principles have been abandoned. But it is right that the House should remember the promises on which the Government were elected and which was contained in their election manifesto, "New Britain". Referring to the prescription charges in particular, the manifesto said:
These charges will be abolished.
Referring to the general policy, it said:
Our aim is to restore as rapidly as possible a fully free Health Service.
The Government have deviated slightly from these promises on which they were elected. Prescription charges have been reintroduced. Indeed, the Government now are walking precisely in the opposite direction from the policy on which they were elected.
I want to tell hon. Members opposite, or those who have bothered to attend the debate, that I like the generosity of spirit which enabled most if not all hon. Members opposite to believe that they could provide a free Health Service, a Service free of charge at the point of use. This seems to me to be a kind, warm, humane approach to those who are sick. But, of course, the policy has collapsed in total ruin. It has irretrievably, irrevocably and unalterably collapsed. The dream world on which they were elected to office and on which they have lived for so many years has now come to an end.
While I have sympathy, and, indeed, feel rather sorry for a number of hon. Members opposite, my sympathy evaporates when I look at the shiftiness with which the present proposals have been introduced.

Dr. Shirley Summerskill: Would the noble Lord not agree that, at the last General Election, the Conservative Party would not commit itself to the fact that it supported Health Service charges?

Lord Balniel: The hon. Lady should read previous speeches made by Conservative spokesmen. She is living continuously under a delusion. I thought that the dream world had come to an end. She is mistaken in her facts.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Richard Crossman): The noble Lord was not present last week at our debate on financing the Health Service, when his hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan), when challenged about charges, said that he was not prepared to commit himself on the matter.

Lord Balniel: I read the right hon. Gentleman's speech and my hon. Friend's admirable speech, and I intend to refer to them.
As I said, my sympathy for hon. Members opposite evaporates when I consider the way in which the present proposals have been introduced. On 14th April, the Secretary of State said at Question Time:
If my hon. Friend is asking me whether I expect further charges to be imposed on the Health Service, the answer is 'No'."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th April. 1969; Vol. 781, c. 771.]
The right hon. Gentleman says that he was answering a question about the principle of selectivity. Indeed he was. That is one of the most astonishing Answers to a question about selectivity that I have ever heard. To say the very least, that was a thoroughly disingenuous answer to give the House. The House at that time was very crowded, and I wonder whether one hon. Member who heard the right hon. Gentleman make that statement imagined that, within a few days, he would be coming before the House to announce that he would be introducing higher Health Service charges.
Twice, also on that same day, I and my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) asked whether it was the right hon. Gentleman's intention to increase prescription charges. The Secretary of State replied, "The answer is 'No'." Carefully, with a most exquisite precision of words, by slithering through some absolutely straightforward questions, the right hon. Gentleman did not tell a lie. Unfortunately, he just created an impression that no further charges would be imposed.
I wonder whether it was worth it. Now, only the most gullible fool in the country will listen to the right hon. Gentleman without examining the small print under a microscope. On 5th May, he announced that the increased charges

were to be made. From then onwards, there was a sheer blizzard of chaos.
My hon. Friend the Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith) is resigning in order to call attention to the lack of facilities in the House. I must say that I have a certain amount of sympathy with him. My own filing system is collapsing under the strain of statements made by the right hon. Gentleman. Government statement contradicts Government statement, the morning editions of the newspapers are contradicted by later editions, and, in the middle of it all, sits the Secretary of State—to use the words of the hon. Lady the Member for Halifax (Dr. Shirley Summerskill)—whose left hand does not know what his other left hand is doing.
First, it was hinted in c. 47 of HANSARD, 5th May, that the £3½ million which was to be raised would be used to finance the psychiatric and geriatric services. Then we had the blazing headlines that the Secretary of State had informed the Parliamentary Labour Party that the money was to be used to finance the comprehensive schools in the key areas. That was on 15th May. Then he said that any such suggestion would be folly—that was on 19th May, in column 10—and he told us not to believe the report. Then the chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party said that he was astonished that the accuracy of his report was doubted. That was on 21st May.
Equal confusion surrounds the timing of the Regulations, when they will be laid and when they will come into force. The decision to increase these particular Health Service charges was taken last January. It was to be in the Budget. The Secretary of State, in his B.B.C. broadcast on "The World at One", on 6th May, said:
This was a statement which we have had for a long time and I had hoped to see it in the Budget.
I can quite understand why he hoped to see it in the Budget, but it was not there. But lots of things which should have been there were not included in the Budget. It is only gradually, in debate after debate, that we have been able to extract the information from the Government.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, that now rather tarnished Sir Galahad of the


Labour Panty, has treated the right hon. Gentleman very badly. He announced the increased benefits, but forgot to announce how they would be paid for. He announced that there was a substantial deficit on the National Insurance Fund, but forgot to tell us how he would correct it. And he completely forgot to include this announcement, which the Secretary of State had expected would be in the Budget, that the charges for dentures and spectacles would be increased.
But it is not only the Chancellor who has behaved badly in this. The Secretary of State's own sense of timing is also rather haphazard. On 14th April, as I said, he announced that there would be no further charges. On 5th May, he announced that regulations would be laid "shortly". But weeks passed. Then, on 24th June, the B.B.C. and The Times and other newspapers said that there were reports that the increased charges were to be deferred.
On the same day, the Department of Health and Social Security issued an official statement that the references by The Times and the B.B.C. were "purely speculation". But it went on:
The timing of the Order has not even been discussed.
Is there one hon. Member who believes that? Indeed, a week later, on 1st July, the Secretary of State said that the regulations would be laid "at an early date".
I suppose that there is some charm about amiable incompetence, but I am not sure that this is amiable. It is certainly incompetence. What I believe is happening is something quite different. The right hon. Gentleman is desperately thrashing around for an escape. He wants a formula of words which will fool his colleagues and get them into the Lobby. He wants a form of words. Normally, of course, the Labour Party will swallow absolutely anything. Of course, as always, on this occasion the payroll vote, the multitudinous place-men of the present Government, will go into the Lobby behind the Government. Normally, of course, the Left wing are content with a mere Motion on the Order Paper and then flake out before it comes to a vote, but on this occasion I think that it is rather different.
They have tasted blood. They have thrown out the Parliament (No. 2) Bill,

the jewel of the Queen's Speech, the very centrepiece of the present parliamentary programme. They have caused a reversal on the Industrial Relations Bill, and this time the Secretary of State has seen their Motion opposing the Regulations, signed by 138 hon. Gentlemen opposite and, rather surprisingly, also by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery). I have no doubt that that is a misprint, but his name appears in the list.
This time they really will vote. This is the last of their sacred cows which still remains alive and they are determined not to see it butchered by the right hon. Gentleman. He is seeking an expedient. He is seeking a formula of words which will fool his hon. Friends and get them to vote for his Regulations. He says, "This is not a violation of a principle; it is an extension of a practice". I wonder whether he knows what General Burgoyne said when he surrendered his troops at Saratoga. He said that he was signing a convention and not a capitulation.
It is widely believed that the right hon. Gentleman will capitulate. It is widely believed that he is trying to smooth down his critics on the benches behind him by pretending that the charges are only temporary. He will remember that when they were introduced in 1951, they were only temporary. They were to last for only the period of rearmament and then be removed. It is widely believed that this is the tactic which he will employ. For instance, the headline of The Guardian on 2nd July was:
Increased health charges may be temporary.
What the right hon. Gentleman is trying to do is to encourage his hon. Friends to look forward to an election which they can once again fight with the words, "These charges will be abolished. Our aim is to restore as rapidly as possible a completely free Health Service". Such an attitude may be altruistic, but it is utterly unrealistic and the Government Front Bench, to its credit, knows this to be so.
We shall discuss the merits of the Regulations when they are published, but at this stage I should like to make two points. Probably the delay in publishing the Regulations has lost completely the saving which the right hon. Gentleman


intended to obtain in the current financial year. His intention was to raise £3·5 million during a full year and £1·7 million during the current financial year. I am told that there has been a substantial increase in demand in recent weeks. It does not require much brilliance to see that it is wiser to buy now rather than await the increased charges which will come later in the year. I admit that I cannot substantiate this, but I suspect that, far from achieving a saving during the current financial year, the dawdling will have resulted in increased expenditure.
Secondly, I want to make a general comment about charges in the Health Service. So long as there are proper and effective exemptions for poor people, I accept that some charges are necessary. If I had been a Socialist Minister, I would have avoided these charges, because such deep issues of principle are felt by hon. Members opposite. Luckily, I am not a Socialist Minister and I recognise, as do many hon. Members opposite, that the Health Service simply cannot afford to discard a source of revenue which does not cause unreasonable hardship.
Today, 85½ per cent. of its finance comes from taxation; 9½ per cent. from contributions and 5 per cent. from charges. We know that even to sustain the parlous state of Health Service finances, let alone secure an improvement, let alone implement Lord Todd's report calling for an expansion in the training of doctors, let alone raising the proportion of the gross national product spent on health to the figure which applies in many other European countries, or in the United States, or in Canada, purely to maintain the existing services expenditure on the Health Service will be increased from £1,900 million now to £2,500 million by 1974–75. To place full responsibility for financing the Health Service on taxation would be to condemn the Service to an ever deepening financial crisis.
I would try to avoid placing over-much reliance on charges. It is a pity that the Government are just maintaining the old pattern of finances as it was in 1948 and are not attempting to diversify the sources of finance, are not attempting to encourage private insurance to relieve

the strain on the Service, not attempting to encourage local fund raising for the use of local hospital projects, not, for instance, following through the thinking behind the suggestions made by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) in his extremely interesting speech last week.
When one walks around hospitals, around wards for the subnormal, or long-stay wards for senile, geriatric confused persons, when one sees the strain on the nurses and staff as a result of overcrowding and understaffing, I fail to understand how one can seriously argue that one should aim to destroy one of the financial props of the Health Service.
When he introduces these Regulations, the right hon. Gentleman will be doing something which is unpleasant, but not unreasonable. All we ask is that he should cast aside this confusion which he appears to be deliberately creating and stand up like a man and explain to the House what are his intentions.

7.27 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. David Ennals): I hope that the noble Lord the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) will not be embarrassed when I tell him that I have a great respect for him because of many things he does in the House and in Standing Committees which I share with him. But I thought the Motion unworthy of him. This sort of knockabout debate is not his style.
There are practitioners of the art who sometimes appear on the Opposition Front Bench. I am thinking of the sort of synthetic anger and frenetic fury sometimes produced by the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber) whom we rarely see these days. This is not the sort of job for the noble Lord. As he was speaking, I was reminded of the advice that Confucius gave to young dragons, when he said, "If you try to breathe fire through a paper mask, you will scorch only yourself".
In this debate the Opposition are behaving like a pack of end-of-term public schoolboys, except that they have kept it up for several months. It is a sort of Billy Bunter stuff. At one stage they cry, "Let's get Wilson", and off they rush, M.P.s, Tory journalists, commentators, script writers, and truth gets


lost in the chase. Then, when they either get tired of that, or find that they are defeated, they try another tack, "Let's get Castle", they say, "If you cannot win the argument, shout them down". We heard them doing that in the debate last Thursday when they did not win the argument, but simply shouted down the other side, and brought disgrace to the House in the course of doing so.
But for a few weeks it has been a different theme. "Let's get Crossman", they say, and off they have rushed on this tack. Nor does it matter what is thrown into the charge. Truth is expendable in the sort of adolescent foray which we have had from the Opposition. If I may coin a phrase, they have spoken in half truths, quarter truths and no truths—mainly no truths in the story that they have told.
One wonders what is the brain process which produces this type of time-wasting, trivial Motion when there are important issues which I would have thought the noble Lord in particular would have wanted to bring before the House. Why are they so worried about the date of the Regulations? One might suppose that they wished to oppose them. But I gather that they do not. Is it perhaps that they want to increase Health Service charges? Perhaps they will say that the figure ought to be higher. I do not know. We have not heard from anything said by the noble Lord today or from anything said last week by his hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan). Perhaps they have in mind other Health Service charges. Certainly that has not been suggested.
We had hoped to get the answer to that question when the hon. Member for Farnham opened the debate on Health Service charges. He made a long speech which the noble Lord said was extremely interesting. Certainly it was a monumental list of questions and an accumulation of arguments that could lead to one conclusion only: that the Tory Party is wedded to a substantial extension of health service charges.
When this point was made, up jumped the hon. Gentleman in the middle of my right hon. Friend's speech to say that he was not advocating Health Service charges. I have read through his speech, as, no doubt, have many other hon. Members—

Mr. Christopher Chataway: rose—

Mr. Ennals: I will give way in a moment. If he was not advocating Health Service charges, I do not know what he was saying.

Mr. Chataway: My hon. Friend is reported as saying:
I was not advocating increased charges, but was putting forward the view that they could be significant."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st July, 1969; Vol. 786, c. 263.]

Mr. Ennals: The hon. Gentleman has been away from the House for some time. It is nice to see him back and helpful to have this sort of clear, pungent, biting statement of precisely where the Tory Party stands on this issue.
The noble Lord said that the speech of the hon. Member for Farnham was very interesting. I do not know whether he read the Daily Telegraph the next morning, which panned it—and I am not surprised—saying that it would have liked the hon. Gentleman to have got up and boldly said that the Tory Party was in favour of the extension of Health Service charges.
I said that I thought that this Motion was not worthy of the noble Lord. I go further. The noble Lord is not worthy of the Motion. Some of my hon. Friends—the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) and others who are here—opposed my right hon. Friend's decision. They made it clear that they opposed on principle any Health Service charges. I respect the sincerity of their views in doing so. For them, these are matters of deep conviction. These are issues on which they have a right to come to the House and ask my right hon. Friend to justify himself, and no doubt they will do so at the right time. But there was not an ounce of sincerity in what the Opposition had to say, and they are not worthy of their own Motion.
I think that this is a deplorable waste of the time of the House of Commons, when one thinks of the major issues that now confront us in the Health Service such as developments within psychiatric hospitals and subnormality hospitals. I mention this first because it is a subject in which the noble Lord is interested. But the Opposition do not wish to bring this subject before the House. I should


think that the hospital building programme was also a subject on which they would care to spend three hours in debate or the Todd Report on Medical Education. The noble Lord mentioned it, but apparently the Opposition do not wish to debate it. There is the whole question of Health Service reorganisation which is under tremendous debate and discussion throughout the country and the Seebohm Report. I could go on with countless issues of fundamental importance. But the Opposition have decided to come along with this petty mouse of a Motion to waste the time of the House of Commons.
I am reminded of John Ciardi's words:
In the long run, a man is defined by what he gives his attention to.
That is very fair. In this case, it is trivia and, as I will go on to prove, misrepresentation.
Is there any substance in the list of tittle-tattle—that is all it is—and garbled Press reports which made up the noble Lord's speech? My right hon. Friend made his statement on 5th May. He said that the Regulation would be laid shortly. He did not say that they would be laid this month or next month, but that they would be laid shortly. The Regulations will in fact be laid tomorrow and will come into effect from 11th August. We will then see what the noble Lord and his hon. Friends have to say if there is any challenge.
It has been said that my right hon. Friend chose his announcement date badly. I was glad that this point was not emphasised by the noble Lord, though it has been much emphasised in the Press. It may be that my right hon. Friend chose his date badly as far as my hon. Friends and the Labour Party are concerned. This was the beginning of the week in which local elections were taking place throughout most of the country. The noble Lord did not suggest that it would have been better had the announcement been made after the local elections. But had my right hon. Friend done that, I can imagine the uproar that would have come from the Opposition.
Had the Opposition done that, it would have been within their tradition. The House might be interested in the time-

table of an historic event which occurred in 1963—about a year before, happily, the Opposition went out of office. On 11th March, 1963, the Government announced that two builders would be selected from a list of three for the contract for Polaris submarines. The three were Vickers of Barrow, Cammell Laird of Birkenhead and Scotts of Greenock. Tuesday, 7th May, was the date of the Scottish local elections. The Scots on Clydeside were no doubt hopeful that the contract would come their way. Certainly nothing had been suggested that this would not be so. Therefore, they went to the polls in hope. The very next day, Wednesday, 8th May, the Government announced that the orders were going to Vickers of Barrow and Cammell Laird of Birkenhead. So the Scots, who had gone to vote in hope were disillusioned the next day. Of course, the day after the announcement there were elections in Barrow and in Birkenhead. I do not know of any better example of rigging a time to suit their convenience. This was really pretty smart work.
The noble Lord has accused my hon. Friend of misleading the House in his answer to Questions on 14th April. There were, as the hon. Gentleman said, two questions. One was put by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) who asked my right hon. Friend whether he would resist Opposition demands for the application of the principle of individual selectivity by imposing further charges. My hon. Friend said "No." It was not a slide; it was a statement that he had no intention of extending the range of health service charges. I can confirm that he has no intention of extending the range.
My right hon. Friend was then asked by the noble Lord whether it was his intention to increase prescription charges. My right hon. Friend said, "The answer is 'No'." Both answers were correct. There was no slide in either case.
The noble Lord raised the question of my right hon. Friend's statement about a link between these charges and the school building programme. This matter was raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Farnham in a Question to the Prime Minister who gave a long and absolutely clear statement of the position. But the noble Lord dragged it up again and again, just as he does his purple passage about the


timing of the National Insurance Bill. Having gone through the debates in this House and in Committee, I could give, though not with all the skill of the noble Lord because he has no doubt rehearsed it, his little passage about the timing as between the Chancellor's statement and the publication of the Bill, and so on.
What about the hundreds of column inches of Press rumours that the Secretary of State had changed his mind? The noble Lord in his speech quoted all sorts of Press reports as if somehow every Press report was true, or even that any of them were true.
The first was the The Times front page headline of June 24th:
Charges for glasses and teeth deferred.
Then, day after day, oblivious of denials by my Department, we had political writers, radio and television commentators and gullible politicians letting their minds run riot on this prospect. One could picture behind the scenes a tremendous gladiatorial struggle, one Minister against another, the Cabinet wrought and involved as to whether the decision should be taken.
The Leader of the Opposition, who will believe anything which seems to offer party advantage, fell for it hook, line and sinker. There were no "ifs" or "buts" when, on 25th June, he went on television and told Robin Day, and, no doubt, a few million listeners who had not by then switched over to the other channel:
Now, the increases in charges for teeth and spectacles. They were announced and have been abandoned.
One must have thought that a special authority had given him that secret information which was not available to anyone else.
There may have been some who believed what the Leader of the Opposition said. No doubt, he hoped that they would and, no doubt, they have been warned. I can say that there was not a scrap of truth in any of those rumours. The rumour was flatly denied by the Department but, nevertheless, it was sustained day after day. It was a rumour without any foundation and yet hon. Members opposite, and even right hon. Members, fell for it. Perhaps it offers them some advantage, and off they go running after the pack.
How did it start? Was it a politician's story? Did they, perhaps, start this hare running themselves? Certainly, it would not be the first time they had dreamed up something and made it into a story. I do not know whether we should be accusing them of spreading falsehoods or only of sheer gullibility—I do not mind which the accusation is; but whichever the case, they certainly ignored Cato's very sound advice. He said:
Avoid gossip, lest you come to be regarded as its originator.
If I may continue the classical reference, my right hon. Friend stands firm and unscathed by the Opposition's attacks. To quote Ovid,
A mind conscious of right laughs at the falsehoods of rumour.
During most of the noble Lord's rumour-mongering speech, we saw my right hon. Friend, conscious of right, laughing.
My own conclusion is that the Motion is nothing but a smokescreen. First, it is a smokescreen to conceal the total lack by the party opposite of any constructive policy in facing the future of the Health Service. We might have imagined last week, when they took the initiative on Tuesday to open the debate on the financing of the Health Service, that we would get some constructive ideas. But no. Perhaps, if they had constructive ideas on any aspects of the Health Service, we would have been debating them now, and we would have been much happier to do so.
I shall quote what the Daily Telegraph said about the noble Lord. On 3rd July, it plaintively wrote:
The Opposition has surely had ample time to do its homework on the social services and to make some specific constructive suggestions for both improving their efficiency and containing their escalating costs.
But no; they have nothing to show for their spell in the wilderness.

Lord Balniel: The hon. Gentleman refers to homework done in opposition. The homework done by hon. Members opposite when in opposition ended in a promise to abolish prescription charges and to move to a free Health Service.

Mr. Ennals: If the noble Lord will be patient, I shall come on to some of the results of what my right hon. Friends did when they were in opposition. The old battle cry that we had heard often of


13 wasted years can now be uprated. It is 18 wasted years, 13 in Government and five in Opposition.
The Motion is a smokescreen, first, to conceal the lack of a constructive policy by right hon. and hon. Members opposite. Secondly, however, it is a smokescreen to conceal the substantial achievements of the Government in their administration of the Health Service. I heard the noble Lord talking about the parlous state of the Health Service. Certainly, we have had to accept some heavy burdens and there are heavy burdens and challenges that have to be met. I want, however, to give a few short, sharp facts to break a way through the smokescreen that the Opposition have tried to create.
First, total expenditure on health and welfare was up from £1,254 million in 1964–65 to £1,942 million 1969–70, an increase of over 50 per cent. If we look at it in terms of a percentage of the gross national product, in 1964, when the Opposition were in power, 4·16 per cent. of the gross national product went to finance the Health Service. Today, it is about 5 per cent., a not inconsiderable increase.
Secondly, the hospital building programme has nearly doubled since 1964 and is now five times as great as it was 10 years ago. I will repeat that: five times as great as it was 10 years ago. New projects to the value of £116 million are planned for 1969–70. The annual average for the 16 years to 1964 was only £17 million. These are real achievements, which were vitally necessary, because when the present Government came to power we inherited hospitals which were in many cases far too old for their purpose and not modernised, and we have had to plunge in with a much more substantially expanded programme.
Thirdly, the number of qualified nurses and midwives has risen by 32,000, or 30 per cent., since 1964. The number in training has increased by 11·6 per cent. If we look at health centres, by 1964 only 20 such centres had been opened in all parts of the country, or slightly more than one a year—a tremendous achievement during those 13 constructive years when the noble Lord and his friends were in Government. Now, 93 health centres have been opened, 69 are being built, a further 64 have been approved for building

and 100 are in course of planning. That is a dramatic move forward in providing the sort of services which are needed to improve the standard of general practice and service to our people.
The noble Lord is very much concerned, as I am, with the problems of the mentally disordered. In 1964, there were 150 hostels for the mentally disordered. There are now 260 hostels, providing more than double the number of places which existed when we came into office. In 1964, there were places in the small homes for the elderly for 66,338 people. The number of places has gone up from 66,000 to 110,000, and the programme goes ahead.
If we look at the services provided for people in their homes—meals on wheels; that is, meals supplied to people in their homes and in their clubs—we find that in 1964, 6·5 million meals were provided and that in 1968 the number was 18·5 million, an increase of more than 300 per cent. on the figures which we inherited. I could go on—

Mr. Tim Fortescue: Is not this dramatic increase in the provision of meals on wheels due entirely to the fact that there is now a Conservative administration in practically every city in the country? The councils are now Conservative-dominated and they have increased these services out of all proportion.

Mr. Ennals: I am sorry. I can only laugh at the joke of one of my hon. Friends—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] It is absolute nonsense. If the hon. Gentleman likes, I will look up some figures and give them to him.
As I said, I could go on with this sort of list of achievements, but there is a danger in doing so, because one can sound complacent, and none of us in the Government from my right hon. Friend down is in the least complacent about any of the problems which we face in the Health Service.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: My hon. Friend said earlier that he was disappointed with the Opposition's Motion and that they could have discussed many other matters like the hospital building programme. But does he not realise that they could not have discussed any of them, because the Government's record has been so splendid?

Mr. Ennals: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for saying what I should like to say myself. It is quite true.
There is a danger of sounding complacent, but I believe that we have a record of which we have good reason to be proud, in terms not only of our achievements to date, but of the plans which have been made for the future.
I have not mentioned the supply of doctors both for the hospital service and for general practice. No one can doubt that this is an extremely important question, and that we have a very substantial shortage of doctors. But why? It is precisely because of the Tory muddle in the late 1950s. I would ascribe it to the decision taken by the party opposite at that time, and I am surprised to see that none of the former Health Ministers is here to listen to the debate. Obviously, they do not feel strongly about this issue. They listened to the noble Lord and cheered him. As soon as he finished, out they went.
What happened in the 1950s was not simply because right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite were faced with economic difficulties. Nor was it because they could not get round to making a plan. They consciously took the decision to cut back on the number of places for doctors trained in this country. Between 1955 and 1961, the average output of medical schools was 1,825. That is a pitifully inadequate number. By 1961 it had gone down to 1,690. By 1962, it had gone down to 1,631. By 1964, when we came to power, it had gone down again to 1,511. The country was being starved of doctors because of conscious decisions taken by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite when they were in office. This is one of the main reasons why we have been short of doctors and more dependent upon the services of doctors from the Commonwealth.
In 1968, the figure rose substantially. The output in 1968 was over 2,000 doctors. By 1975, there will be places for at least 3,700 doctors in our medical schools. This takes many years. Doctors do not come like manna from heaven. It is taking us many years to put right the result of the muddle left by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite when they were in power. We on this side of the House do not accept from them accusations of muddle.
To return to the Motion, although, unlike right hon. Gentlemen opposite, I do not believe everything that I read in the Press, I read that originally the Opposition intended to debate this Motion on Tuesday, 1st July. Presumably in a censure Motion on a Secretary of State, they would have imposed a three-line Whip. That is the normal tradition for a censure Motion. However, the date was Investiture Day—

Lord Balniel: To save the hon. Gentleman having to develop the point, it was a mistake on our part. We had not foreseen that the Prime Minister would be at Caernarvon Castle. We felt that he should be given an opportunity to be present for this debate on an issue on which he himself had resigned.

Mr. Ennals: Is the noble Lord really saying that it was the intention of the Opposition, consciously thought out, that they would impose a three-line Whip on the House on Investiture Day? Was it simply that they were worried about the Prime Minister? What about the Leader of the Opposition? Was it not supposed that perhaps there might have been representation from the Opposition benches at an event of this historic significance? The noble Lord's interjection shows that he admits that it was a mistake on their part. It was an infernal mistake, and it would not have been discovered had it not been for the assistance of my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary, as a result of which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite were reminded that 1st July was Investiture Day. So, instead of having this censure Motion then, we had the little Motion, and the unfortunate hon. Member for Farnham had to dream up a quite different speech. It may be that that explains the emptiness of the content of that speech. As an example of muddle, that is about the limit.
Having made that absurd mistake, I should have thought that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite would themselves have buried their petty, stupid little Motion. But, no. This was the only issue in their minds, so here it is today. Since they will not bury it themselves, we shall have to bury it for them.

7.57 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Chataway: As this is the first occasion on which I have had the opportunity to


address the House since my return, perhaps I will be allowed to refer to my predecessor, Mr. Walter Loveys. He was deeply interested in the social services. He was widely admired in the constituency and, although it is an honour for me to follow him, I know that both here and in the constituency there will be very many who mourn his passing.
I want to deal with a number of the points raised by the Minister of State in what I thought was a speech principally remarkable for the very few occasions on which it touched upon the Motion. I intervene in the debate not primarily because I have any claim to be an expert on the Health Service, but because I have a deep interest in what I take to be the core of the debate, and that is the means by which Governments can finance improvements in our social services.
For the past two years, I have had some responsibility for another social service—the education service in London. I find that some of my own experiences there are closed mirrored by the experiences of those who are faced with the administration of the Health Service in the regions. I find in both health and education that there is a tremendous demand for improvements and continual pressure from the Government to introduce them.
The other day, my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) pointed to a number of instances where regional hospital boards were complaining about being subjected, week after week, to demands from the Ministry of Health for improvements. A very large number of circulars have been issued by the Ministry during the past 12 months to that effect. On the other hand, the Government, in health as in education, are unable to provide funds, and they show an obsessive reluctance to raise them in any way other than taxation.
That is the cause of today's debate. It is the rather tortured attempt of the Secretary of State to raise modest sums by an increase in the health charges which has led to the astonishing muddle which has been unfolded during the last few weeks.
The Minister of State pooh-poohs the suggestion that there has been any

muddle. The whole debate, he says, is an appalling waste of time. The whole matter, he says, is trivial. I wonder whether the Minister of State agrees with his hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt), for whose contributions I always had great respect when I was last in the House and whose contribution to the debate the other day I read with interest. In urging the Government to restore the basic principle of his party on health matters, the hon. Member said:
This has been a trump card at every General Election right the way through my political history."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st July 1969; Vol. 786, c. 291.]
I wonder whether the Minister of State agrees that the promise to restore a free Health Service has been a political trump card for the Labour Party in recent elections. If so, then surely so dramatic a departure from it should hardly be described by him as a trivial matter.
The Minister failed to answer any of the questions put to him by my noble Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel). Is it the case that these charges are to be permanent or are they temporary? In the debate the other day the hon. Member for Willesden, West revealed that he had received a letter from the Prime Minister about prescription charges in which the Prime Minister had written:
It would be wrong for you to assume that these charges, reluctantly introduced to meet a serious economic situation, carried the implication of a permanent change in the Government's policy or of its approach to Health Service financing.
Are these increased charges temporary or are they to be regarded as a reflection of a permanent change of philosophy by the Government? That question was put by my noble Friend, but it was not answered.
The confusion about comprehensive schools remains. It does not do for the Minister of State to pooh-pooh all that and to pretend that the Government have always had both their intentions and their arguments for increasing these charges clear in their minds. Those who follow events are bound to recall the statements of the Secretary of State. We have the evidence of the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) that according to the Secretary of State the money from increased charges was to be spent on comprehensive schools.

Mr. Ennals: The hon. Member is holding a heavy volume of documents in his hands. Has he troubled to read the reply given by the Prime Minister to his hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) as reported in HANSARD of 20th May at column 63? That set the matter out clearly.

Mr. Chataway: Of course I have read that reply, but the point with which the Prime Minister did not deal—nor did he deal with it on television, and I also watched that—is the evidence of the right hon. Member for Sowerby that at a party meeting it was stated that the money saved in this way was to enable increases in the comprehensive school building programme.
I do not want to dwell on this point, because the Minister of State knows as well as I do that that was a nonsense. The very idea that increases in a capital building programme two or three years' hence could be dependent on an increase in revenue income now is obviously inherently absurd.
Very few will have failed to notice that there has been a considerable struggle on the Government's part to increase these charges. Does it matter? I believe that it does, for two broad reasons. First, I believe that charges have a significant part to play in the financing of the Health Service, as of other social services. The Minister of State quoted my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham, but he stopped at mid-sentence in the quotation. I pointed out that my hon. Friend had said—and here I entirely agree with him—that increased charges may have a significant part to play. Do they, in fact, have a significant part to play? Is it necessary to increase charges or is there an alternative means of financing the improvement?
We can look only to four possible sources. The first is taxation. My noble Friend pointed out that over 85 per cent. of the Health Service is financed out of taxation. The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Marquand), with commendable honesty in view of the arguments which he was adducing, said in the debate the other day:
… we cannot possibly hope to achieve the kind of health expenditure we need without a massive increase in taxation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st July 1969, Vol 786, c. 276.]

That is clear, and it is a position which I take to be consistent with the policy favoured by the Labour Party. All that the Secretary of State could offer in that debate was the suggestion that another form of taxation—contributions—might be increased, particularly the employers' contributions, after 1972. That is the second possible source.
It is common ground in all parts of the House that in the years immediately ahead there is no prospect of substantially increasing taxation. The hon. Member for Ashfield may like the idea, but I do not believe that even he, when speaking the other day, believed it to be possible. Certainly, no hon. Member is anxious to point to the sectors of the population which are capable of withstanding any increase in taxation. There is general agreement that those in the lowest income groups cannot stand it, and the move from varieties of poll tax to earnings-related contributions stems, I understand, from the desire to lessen the burden of taxation upon the poorest sectors of the community.
There would be general agreement, too, with the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), when he spoke in the debate the other day of those on £20 to £30 a week being subjected to a "terribly heavy burden". Further up the incomes scale, as we are beginning to realise, we in this country tax those in the upper income groups more heavily than almost all of our competitors and the crying need is for a reduction in direct taxation on the upper income groups.
Therefore, while there is general recognition of the fact that improvements in our social services are needed, and while we can all give our lists of priorities—within the Health Service, for my part, I hope that the severely disabled will be early candidates for improved services—virtually everybody now recognises that there is precious little room for financing improvements out of taxation.
Only two alternatives are left: expanding the private sector or increasing charges. For the Government, of course, there is only one alternative, for expanding the private sector is doctrinally impossible for them. The Secretary of State dealt with this briefly in the debate the other day, when he pointed out that there had been some increase in the private sector. His arguments against


encouraging any further increase I found singularly unconvincing. He said:
At present, virtually all the leading doctors treat Health Service patients, and the majority of their time is contracted to the Service. Health Service patients know that they can obtain medical care from our leading doctors, or at least from those doctors' firms. If the private sector or insurance became dominant, there might well be a considerable number of leading consultants who treated only private patients. Some might work only in private hospitals. We could no longer claim that all citizens, whatever their means, were able to obtain the same standard of medical care."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st July, 1969; Vol. 786, c. 260.]
But how important is it to be able to claim that all citizens are able to obtain the same standard of medical care, if one can provide a better standard of medical care for all?
The right hon. Gentleman drew an analogy with private education, where 6 per cent. of children—the figure has remained fairly constant over the post war years—go to private schools. I cannot believe that an increase from the present 3 per cent., the number in the private health sector, would, to use his word, "destroy" the Health Service.
If one can bring in fresh resources to the Health Service by encouraging the private sector, the result is more resources for everybody. With the relatively few choices open to us, it is foolish to dismiss the private sector and the apparently increasing preparedness of individuals to pay their own way.

Mr. Ennals: Does not the hon. Gentleman see that if there is a limitation on the supply of doctors and if one increases the private sector, which is able to demand a better service—[Interruption.] That must be so, or people would not pay for it—to get, for example, more rapid treatment, that reduces the standard for the rest of the population and produces a category of first and second-class citizens in this respect?

Mr. Chataway: The Minister does not apparently realise—he is not alone in this because his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State appears to share his view—that if one increases the amount of money spent on health generally, by increasing private contributions, one thereby produces more resources. It is not a question of saying out of the present given resources for health should be 1½ per cent.

go to the private sector and 981 per cent. to the public sector, or some other proportions. If we enlarge the resources available to health in the way I have described, more resources can be available for the public generally. Inequality there may be, but if there is improvement for all, then surely that is right.
However, this alternative is not open to the Government. If there is to be any improvement in any sector of the Service it is unlikely to come about without increases in charges such as those which the Government are reluctantly now introducing. We should consider the possibility of increasing charges in many spheres. I would be out of order in going into the whole question of education, but we need only consider the case for introducing charges for nursery schools. This case is overwhelming. The other day the Secretary of State said that charges for day nurseries were not controversial. If they are not controversial for day nurseries, they should be acceptable for nursery schools.
Then, again, we should look at the question of charges, in the shape of loans, for higher education. And increased charges for school meals makes sense. In health, we should look carefully at the possibility of charging for hospital beds in certain hospitals and even, perhaps, for visits to the doctor. But both suggestions were dismissed the other day by the Secretary of State as "outrageous".
It is sad that the Government should be demonstrating publicly that it is only with the utmost difficulty that they are just able modestly to increase these charges. This may mark the last attempt by the present Government to alter the status quo in a manner that is distasteful to the Parliamentary Labour Party. One of the big changes one notices on returning to this place after three years is the general realisation of the potential strength of the House of Commons. Three years ago there was a great deal of talk about the omnipotence of the Prime Minister and the relative strength of the Executive in a modern legislature.
The Government have publicly demonstrated a very different picture. Now that the Parliamentary Labour Party has succeeded in defeating the Government on Lords reform, industrial reform and, in a sense, on the prices and incomes policy, and has subjected them to such a


humiliating series of explanations and circumlocutions in this matter, I doubt whether in this Parliament we will see a further attempt to defy Government back benchers. This may be the last angry flap of a lame duck Administration.

8.13 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: The House will wish me to congratulate the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Chataway) on his first speech since his re-election. On personal grounds we welcome him back. We have missed him for the last couple of years or so, because he is a man of progressive views on many questions about which his lion. Friends tend to be reactionary. I am sure that he will contribute some constructive thought on matters about which he must have gained valuable experience during his absence from the House.
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman the more because he has taken a good deal of nonsense out of the debate. It really is a silly debate and one wonders how it can be kept going relative to the Motion until ten o'clock. I will deal with some of the more serious thoughts which the hon. Gentleman expressed later, but, first, I had better refer to the remarks of the noble Lord the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel), who opened the debate, and some of the comments that have been made on this subject by his hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan), who, I understand, will wind up for the Opposition.
I am sure that the noble Lord enjoyed teasing my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Certainly, he had plenty of support from his hon. Friends while his speech was in progress, though as my hon. Friend the Minister of State pointed out, as soon as the noble Lord had finished, his hon. Friends trooped out to have their dinner and did not even bother to stay to hear the Minister's reply.
The noble Lord is held in mixture of respect and scorn in the House, because sometimes he is so good and at others so petty. I thought that this afternoon he was almost at his worst. I once described him as the "Billy Graham of the Conservative Party". He then had fervour and evangelical oratory to support his case, but this afternoon he was only indulging in a boyish prank. There he sits: the son, I believe, of an earl. On his right is the son of a former

Prime Minister. All they are indulging in this afternoon is a boyish prank. It is not worthy of the House of Commons. We often hear of the House of Commons at its best. I think that today the House of Commons is at its worst, because this really is not a worthy subject to occupy the valuable time of the House for several hours.
The noble Lord realises that on this side we have many difficulties of principle in relation not only to social services but to other matters. In a rash moment, I said once that the trouble with the Labour Party is that it has so many principles that it cannot live up to them all at once. That is a grief not shared by the Opposition, because they have so few of them.
This afternoon we have heard from the hon. Member for Chichester a continuation of last Tuesday's debate. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State has said, if one wants to see Opposition muddle we surely saw it last Tuesday. They had arranged to have a censure debate on that day. I was warned of it. We knew that it would be very difficult to hold people from the Investiture to obey a three-line Whip in order to defeat this nonsense at the end of the day. Then the Opposition awoke to the fact that the Investitute was on that day, and it was not the Prime Minister they were worried about but the Leader of the Opposition—and probably the noble Lord himself, because he was not here last Tuesday during any part of the debate. Perhaps he would like to say where he was last Tuesday.

Lord Balniel: The right hon. Gentleman describes me as the "Billy Graham of the Conservative Party", but he is now behaving like the dyspeptic Santa Claus of the Labour Party. I had a perfectly good and valid reason for not being here. I regret that I could not be here, but I had a very good reason.

Mr. Houghton: I have no desire to suggest that the noble Lord was absent without reason—or, indeed, absent without leave. I am just commenting that on that important day when we were discussing the financing of the National Health Service, for which he is shadow Minister, he was not present. I make the comment, and that is enough.
On that day we had a very constructive debate on the financing of the National Health Service. I thought that it was a good debate—probably better because I did not take part in it. The hon. Member for Farnham made a constructive though interrogatory opening speech, and from the my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services we had an extremely illuminating survey of the finances of the National Health Service and of the various methods of raising the money. It was a most useful debate in presenting to the public the options of how the Health Service could be financed.
It would have been more seemly had the noble Lord said this afternoon that the Opposition wanted to continue with that debate now, because it was so interesting that he and others wanted to take part in it. But no—he indulges in these playful references to my right hon. Friend and calls it muddle. Surely he understands that the root of the problem is curbs on public exenditure. We are always being asked by the Opposition to reduce public expenditure, but they rarely say in which direction it should be reduced.
In a debate such as this, what is conspicuously absent is anything from the Opposition about their policy for financing the Health Service. In fact, we have not heard from them anything of their policy for social services as a whole. We have not heard their official view of the White Paper on the future of the social services. We have not heard what they would put in its place—if they would put anything in its place at all. On the Health Service, all we heard the noble Lord say was that while some charges would be justified he doubted whether, if he were a Socialist Minister of Health, he would introduce these particular charges. That leaves us just nowhere. We have not heard what the Opposition would do.
The events in the Parliamentary Labour Party have received a good deal of publicity. All I would say about that is that it would be a very good thing if the 1922 Committee would adopt the same practice that we have followed for quite a long time in the Parliamentary Labour Party and have a full official briefing of the meeting afterwards. Then we should

get to know something about which we know so little, and that is the muddle in the minds of right hon. and hon. Members opposite about the social services. They are in a dilemma, even if not in a muddle. They do not know what to say about the future of the social services. Let them be honest about it: as of now, they do not know what to say about the future of the social services; still less, what to say about the financing of the Health Service.
My right hon. Friend last Tuesday, without any doctrinal overtones, said, "Here you are. We have looked at this from the point of view of the total cost of the Health Service. This is the part which, perhaps, at the maximum charges could play. Would that be a significant contribution to the financing of the Service? Here is the maximum part which, perhaps, contributions could play. Will that be a significant contribution to the finances?" He then examined the much greater rôle of general taxation.
I have no doctrinal difficulties about charges in the Health Service provided that they are the sort of charges I think should be related to the capacity of people to pay. In this respect I differ, no doubt, from some of my hon. Friends who hold tenaciously to the view that there should never be any charges in the Health Service at the time of needing the Service. That is their view, and it is heard in every debate. The large number of my hon. Friends who put their names to the early day Motion shows how strongly this view is held in the Parliamentary Labour Party. My right hon. Friend knows that and has known it all along.
We had serious difficulties over the earlier introduction of prescription charges after we had abolished them in 1965, but the Opposition played very little part in that debate if I remember rightly. When we were in serious internal difficulties about that proposal I believe the Opposition walked out and abstained from voting in the Division. They left it to us and expressed no view on prescription charges. We shall see, when the House debates my right hon. Friend's new proposals for prescription charges, what the Opposition says about them.

Dr. M. P. Winstanley: Surely it is on the record that my hon. Friends on this bench precipitated that debate, not the right hon. Gentleman's


hon. Friends, although we were very glad to have their support in the Lobby?

Mr. Houghton: I so rarely reckon the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) and his hon. Friends as among the Opposition that I was not taking them into account.

Mr. Laurence Pavitt: I remind the House that it was my Prayer and that I divided the House.

Mr. Houghton: Now we have competing claims for the honour of having moved the Prayer and dividing the House. At least, the noble Lord does not make a claim on his own behalf. He knows well that he played no part in the Division on the Regulations that time.
I suppose that we must have a few constructive and serious thoughts in this debate; otherwise, it will be a completely empty occasion. As to the future of the Health Service, I think that we shall now have a combined contribution to social security and the Health Service and that one has to recognise the limit to the principle of a proportionate contribution. It is very important to recognise that when a proportionate charge becomes too high there is bound to be a demand that it should be made progressive. Then one is in the field of direct taxation. We cannot have a percentage of earnings as a contribution carried too far without raising the question of whether those who are asked to pay have domestic circumstances and demands—a wife, children and the rest—which would make it fairer for a progressive charge and not a proportionate charge to be levied. There is a limit to the amount of a contribution levied on conventional social security lines. This is something to be borne in mind.
It may be that one could develop the idea of a social security tax or a social services tax which would be progressive. I know the objection of Governments and Chancellors of the Exchequer to having a form of taxation which is identified with a particular purpose and a particular object, but in certain circumstances we would be justified in having a progressive levy for social services. This, I know, would infringe the traditional contributory principle where, in the past, everyone has contributed alike and everyone has had benefits alike. That was a tenable proposition in relation to the flatrate

scheme, but it becomes less tenable under a graduated scheme.
However, there will be plenty of time for these debates to be carried further. I think the last word on financing social security has not yet been said by a long way. As the cost of social security rises we shall have more opportunities to debate how the money should be levied. I think it certain that it will not be raised in any substantial amount by charges on the Health Service. But we are discussing the alleged muddle and not the wider issue, however desirable it is to widen the scope of the debate. My right hon. Friend was surely faced with the difficulty this time, as on the previous occasion, that money had to be raised beyond the provision made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the social services if the services themselves were not to suffer.
This was the least objectionable way that the additional money could be raised. I see nothing of a muddle in that. If my right hon. Friend has had regard to the susceptibilities and feelings on my hon. and right hon. Friends on this side of the House, it just shows that he is sensitive to our feelings and convictions.
I conclude by saying that nothing the noble Lord said this afternoon can possibly harm my right hon. Friend. His stature, his standing, his compassion, his capacity for taking a broad sweep of the concept of the social services, is far beyond the range of the noble Lord, or at least of anything we have heard from him. Therefore, my right hon. Friend will come out of this debate unscathed, as big a man as he was before the debate began.

8.36 p.m.

Dr. M. P. Winstanley: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) began his speech by commenting on the relative merits of the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) as against certain other speeches. Since the right hon. Gentleman has set the example, I would comment that I have heard the right hon. Gentleman himself make more significant contributions, or contributions to which I have had greater pleasure in listening.
We have heard much about wasted time. Indeed, the Minister said that we


had wasted a great deal of time and that it could have been far better spent. I agree that the noble Lord is not particularly adroit at exhibiting synthetic indignation. He could scarcely conceal his delight that the Government had given slight support to his own party's policy on charges. Therefore, there was some ambivalence in his attitude from the Opposition Front Bench.
The one speech which certainly did not waste time was that made by the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Chataway). I did not agree with what he said, but it was relevant to the point. One would not, of course, expect him to take up a great deal of time, since his activities were at one period connected with the running track where his time was used most economically. He certainly used his time economically today. We have not a great deal of time before us in this debate which is supposed to be a short one. We have had only four speeches in one and a half hours, and I will try to be quick.
The views of the Liberal Party on this subject are fairly well known. Those hon. Members on both sides of the House who do not yet know them have perhaps reached a stage when they no longer wish to improve their knowledge. I summarise our views by saying that, with proper organisation and proper use of existing resources and the avoidance of duplication and waste, it ought to be possible to organise and maintain a comprehensive, efficient and human Health Service on a non-paying basis.
I do not delude myself into thinking that the Health Service can be free, since it has to be paid for somehow. The question is whether it is to be paid for at the time of need, or by a spread-over method of taxation, or on an insurance basis. This is what the argument is about. I do not think anybody would now suggest that we should move wholly to a method of payment only at the time of need. Nobody on this side or, I am sure, on the Conservative side, would recommend that. Does one go to payment at the time of need at all, and, if so, how far? This is a complex argument—and we could take a good deal of time over it.
I was interested in the hon. Member for Chichester's remarks about private

practice, but his argument shared some of the fallacies advanced by hon. Members opposite about private practice. One hears supporters of the Government saying that private practice is somehow plundering the Health Service and using up resources in some curious way. On the other hand, we heard the hon. Member for Chichester imply that, somehow or other, private practice could of itself create new resources. In fact, neither is true. A patient who has his appendix removed, whether it is removed under the National Health Service or privately, occupies only one bed, probably is in hospital or clinic for the same number of days, and takes up the time of only one surgeon. Therefore, I do not agree with the view that is sometimes expressed that the private sector consumes resources in some way. People do not have operations for fun. They do not suddenly decide to have something done because they can have it done privately.
I do not believe that the abolition of the private sector would restore the deficiencies in the public sector, and neither do I take the other view. The deficiencies in the National Health Service are due to shortage of premises, shortage of personnel, shortage of materials, and so on, and one does not suddenly create those merely by creating private practice. It is a long argument, and I should welcome an opportunity to go into it on another occasion.
I come now to the Motion itself. It regrets the muddle. No one can doubt that there has been muddle. I cannot imagine that any hon. Member opposite will seriously suggest otherwise. If there has been muddle, we should regret it. Muddle cannot be regarded as desirable even when it delays the undesirable. Therefore, although I am not sorry if muddle may result in a change of heart on the benches opposite, I cannot commend the muddle. Accordingly, I support the Motion.
I support the Motion also in condemning the Government for a further reason. We regret the muddle and, what is more, we regret the decision which led to the muddle and which could produce even further muddle. The increased charge is illogical. Why suddenly decide to raise this charge?
I have discussed this matter consistently on two previous occasions. I say that


to put the record straight. One Motion was moved by the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt). The other was a Prayer which I moved against the Regulations raising the prescription charges. At that time, I said that, if we are to have charges, they ought to be logical and properly considered. A random charge on prescriptions is illogical. Why should a person who takes two minutes of his doctor's time to have some iron and vitamin tablets pay 5s. when a person who takes half a hour of the doctor's time to discuss his or her matrimonial difficulties pays nothing? If there is to be a charge, we should apply it to the use of the service. Similarly, it is illogical to pick on these two items as the ones on which the charge should be increased. Why not glass eyes? Why not artificial limbs?
There is another illogicality. Now that we are changing the age of majority, we should recall that exemption from certain of these charges operates up to the age of 21. It might have been logical if the right hon. Gentleman had said that the age of exemption should stop at 18. If his idea was to tidy up anomalies and remove illogicality, there is a real illogicality which one could have considered.
What are the increased charges for? I do not imagine that they are to provide additional money for the National Health Service. In fact, we know that they are not. If the purpose were to provide additional money, the Secretary of State could say that there will be another £½ million and it will all go to the Service as extra money, not to replace other money. That would at least have been arguable, though, again, I should not agree. But that is not the intention.
It cannot be the purpose—as was argued by some people with regard to prescription charges generally—to discourage frivolous or extravagant use of the Service. I did not agree with that argument when it was used about prescription charges. I take the view that, by and large, people visit their doctors because they are ill, not for some frivolous or extravagant reason. I do not accept the view that prescription charges discourage the hypochondriac. My experience of the hypochondriac is that, once a charge is introduced, he or she regards it as cheap at the price and then makes even more use of the Service.
One could not possibly regard these increased charges as being introduced to act as a disincentive to those who would otherwise seek to make frivolous or extravagant use of the Service. People do not choose to wear spectacles for frivolous reasons, and neither do they choose to have their teeth out and be fixed up with dentures for frivolous or extravagant reasons. We can dismiss that.
We must come to the conclusion that the increased charges are being introduced merely as an extraordinary and capricious method to raise funds for the Exchequer or marginally to reduce purchasing power. The sum involved is so negligible that in either case one could hardly justify the proposals. We cannot justify them even if it could be argued that this is a very small thing and that people will manage.
Let us look at the other side and see what possible ill effects there will be. If there are no very good reasons for doing this, are there any good reasons for not doing it? There are. Both teeth and spectacles can be done without, but they are things that should not be done without. I have had experience, not once but over and over again in different phases of my professional life, of people who have done without one or the other, or even both, purely for financial reasons. I do not think that people are often deterred from obtaining the necessary prescription for penicillin or other antibiotics because of the half-crown prescription charge, but I have known many cases of people who were deterred from obtaining spectacles.
For many years I was a part-time industrial medical officer at a big heavy engineering factory, where I had to examine people for crane driving and similar jobs. If a man's vision was not up to standard I had to have him removed from crane driving and put him on other work. I would tell him that if his vision was all right with spectacles he would be able to resume his original work, but often there were long delays before men obtained their spectacles, because they waited until a convenient financial time. It was not that they were desperately hard up, but spectacles are things that people can do without, and if one provides people with encouragement to do without them there can be undesirable consequences. There can even be


undesirable consequences on production if, for example, a productive worker is put on clearing up work while waiting for his spectacles, which often happens because he waits until he feels that he can afford them.
In general practice I, like every other general practitioner, have had experience of a medical condition, such as a gastric complaint, resulting from dental caries. We tell the patient that it would be better if he had his teeth out, but he will often say, "I cannot afford it until I have come back from Majorca." Patients say this quite seriously, because teeth are something people can do without, and they will be pm off obtaining false teeth by the increase. The Secretary of State makes a mistake if he provides a financial disincentive to people's obtaining spectacles or teeth.
There is nothing much else I want to say. I am opposed to the increases. I think this is unnecessary; it is a mistake. It will have ill effects. Merely to raise a trivial amount of money for national funds or to have a negligible effect on purchasing power the Secretary of State intends to introduce a measure which, however marginally, may cause some suffering and result in accidents and ill health, and could marginally have a deleterious effect on production. I hope that as a result of this debate the right hon. Gentleman will think again.

8.49 p.m.

Mr. Laurence Pavitt: The hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) and I agree on so many matters that I want to raise only one point on which I disagree with him. He suggested that the private sector does not greatly absorb resources which could be used for the National Health Service, but I profoundly differ. When one has in an area of unlimited demand only a certain amount of resources, it is inevitable that if people can pay for resources privately those important resources are used by the people who can afford it, and, therefore, people dependent on the Health Service cannot command those resources. This was seen during our short exchanges at Question Time on the way in which the Abortion Act is working.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman's major points, and I do not differ on the support we have both given in the past

to trying to maintain the basic principles of the Health Service.
The slight difference I have with my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) is not about ultimates, but about the intermediate stage. The Labour Party's hope has always been that eventually, in the ideal society, we would be able to provide a system whereby those who were not in need should be able to provide for those who were. We have reached only the first step towards that. In 1948, we succeeded in reaching the stage when we could say, "At this time in our health services we are able to say that a person in need shall not have additional anxiety and a financial burden at the time of illness or disability."
I agree with my right hon. Friend that we hope to get to the stage where we can extend that principle further and, indeed, over the whole of social security. One of the reasons for my great concern about the Government's new proposal is that it represents a step backward on something that we have achieved. If we go further along the road of imposing charges on people at the time they need to use the Health Service, we are confirming a principle to which I have been opposed all my political life.
But, in reply to the Motion, I could not agree more with the speech of my hon. Friend the Minister of State. It is something of a tragedy for me that, although I have participated during the last 10 years in every debate on health in the House, and have often either followed or been preceded by the hon. Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel), this is the first time that we have ever had a debate on this level. Usually, those of us on both sides who take an interest in health have had constructive contributions to make, but this debate is just a vehicle for a personal attack on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
Passionately as I feel against the Government's proposal, I bow to no one in my tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the way in which, coming to the Department as an expert on pensions, he has also taken what was for him an entirely fresh field of activity, has grasped some of the great intricacies of the subject, and has brought fresh air into something which was inclined to be rather impersonalised and


sophisticated in many ways. In his new approach, he is opening all kinds of doors on things which had been fusty for a long time. Of course, he will make mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes. But the idea of moving a Motion of this kind is so much nonsense. I hope that my right hon. Friend will laugh at it as much as I laugh at it.
However, the Motion has given us the opportunity of a debate. I am grateful for the revealing contribution of the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Chataway). He and I came into the House in 1959, and it was some cause of embarrassment to be in those days, before time had taken its toll of my looks, because I was sometimes mistaken for him. I was sometimes asked for my autograph on the ground that I had run a mile in four minutes, and I could only say that that was not, of course, the case.
The hon. Gentleman made a plea not only for this proposal, which I do not like, but for something even more. He claimed that the present level of taxation was sacrosanct and that taxes must not be raised. I remember well in 1961 that £65 million was raised on prescription charges and on charges for cod liver oil and orange juice. Within a short time, because of the arguments the hon. Gentleman used tonight in relation to taxation, the Government gave back £83 million to the surtax payers because they thought they must give them incentives. The idea that we cannot possibly increase taxation because we have now reached the utmost limit is sheer financial nonsense. We have a position in which 60 per cent. of the wealth of the country is owned by 5 per cent. of the population, so there is a whole area where people could afford to pay more and would not be under great hardship if they were so charged.
My right hon. Friend is facing the problem of how far a comprehensive service can be comprehensively paid for. His argument of last Tuesday was irrefutable. As he said, if 85½ per cent. of the cost of the Service is to come from taxation, the remaining amounts must be perpheral. But any extension of the margin which causes difficulty will increase the problem of persuading people to accept the reality that taxation must meet the main part of the burden, and will, therefore, be a step in the wrong direction; in the long run, counter-productive.
We spend about 5¼ per cent. of our gross national product on the Health Service and the figure should be at least 6 per cent. The only way in which we shall be able to persuade people to accept a comprehensive Health Service is to get them to understand what it is all about. When the average father of a family spends more on tax and insurance for his car than on the health of his family in a year, when more is spent on each of three sectors of spending, on tobacco, on wines and spirits, and on gambling, than is spent on the Health Service, our approach is entirely wrong. It cannot be said that the expenditure of £1·5 million is a major issue.
I blame the Press, especially the "heavies", which, in the week before last, set the world's record for reporting non-events. On the Tuesday they said that my right hon. Friend was facing a major confrontation between the Government and back benchers and that the Government had given way. On the Thursday, The Guardian announced more great news about what was to happen. It was all guesswork.
My right hon. Friend is to be commended for not having taken decisions isolated and removed from Parliament and for permitting us as a House of Commons to debate these issues. He has listened to views and joined in discussions and has forcefully argued his own case, and for that he should be commended. He is constantly trying to understand what the opposition to his proposals is about and to assess the right course.
The Motion is irrelevant. The Opposition should be praising my right hon. Friend for not having dashed in with a proposal which was bound to cause controversy on his own side of the House and for being prepared, rationally, quietly and coolly, to assess the likely consequences, not just the political consequences for his own party, something which has never been a major consideration with my right hon. Friend, but the consequences for the people and for the Health Service, which has a unique place in the world.
So many other subjects could have been debated this evening—whether integration of the Administration of the Health Service could be achieved, whether we could have community health service councils, and so on, all subjects


of much greater importance. The Opposition accuse my right hon. Friend of muddle. These increased charges for teeth and spectacles are important because they represent a consolidation of a change of direction. No one can claim that one-third per cent. of our entire expenditure in the Health Service is a matter of confidence in the Government, or its credibility that the expenditure of £1·5 million this year or £3·5 million in a full year is of such major importance that the country is waiting to see whether the Government will fall.
The issue has always been peripheral. However, the Motion has been moved because of the political climate and because July is always a mad month for Parliament. A story had to be found and this was built up so that it could be said that there was a great revolt among the serried masses behind me. The Opposition have said, "If we cannot find a fight, let us create one".
I have made it clear to my right hon. Friend that I shall oppose these charges. I am clear about that, and my right hon. Friend is clear about it, too. The idea that this issue should be reduced to the kind of political knockabout resulting from the Motion is foreign to the character of both the noble Lord and the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan), who made a serious contribution to last Tuesday's debate. It is foreign, too, to my right hon. and hon. Friends and those few hon Members opposite who believe that the Health Service is one of the greatest achievements of the century in showing how people can care for those who are sick and disabled.
This country is unique in that. Other countries have health services and provisions of one kind or another which are admirable and well worth while, but this country has tried to put into operation a principle by which those who are able care for those who are sick and disabled. With the maximum amount coming from taxation, we are all paying for it. The biggest nonsense of all is to call it a free service. The important question is when and how we pay for it. People think that they are covered comprehensively. If we impose a second charge only on those who are in need of a certain part of the Health Service at

the time of that need arising, we shall go back on a great and unique achievement.
With the Health Service, we have taken a great step forward in our whole approach to human relations, community contact and the brotherhood of man. It is because of those principles that I hoped and believed that it would be possible to avert my right hon. Friend's Regulations. Once they were blown up by the Press as a major cause of conflict, however, that was no longer possible. A number of hon. Members have talked about the possibility of their being temporary. It is my sincere hope that, because it is irrelevant financially and economically and because there are better ways of achieving the same end, the Government will reach a decision eventually that economic circumstances force them to do what they do not want to do, but, when those circumstances improve, they will find other ways and means of ensuring that those of us who are healthy look after those who are ill and that those of us who have good eyes, teeth and ears bear the burden for those who do not.
The obvious corollary is that if we intend to move to preventive medicine, the people who do without are those who end up needing to have hospital treatment, whereas if, in the absence of any financial barrier, their complaints had been dealt with in time a great deal of expense to the taxpayer and suffering for the patient would have been saved.
I shall support my right hon. Friend tonight because of his tremendous achievements in the Health Service in a very short time, but it is my hope that the Government will change their mind and their approach to the financing of the Health Service and get back to what is one of the greatest achievements of the Labour Government of 1945 to 1950.

9.4 p.m.

Mr. Paul Dean: I am sure that the House recognises the strenuous battle which the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) has always fought against prescription charges and against any other type of charge proposed for the Health Service. Hon. Members acknowledge that whether they agree with him, as some of his hon. Friends do, or, like me, take the contrary view.
It is interesting that the Minister of State and the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) both attempted to laugh off the debate as a waste of time for the House of Commons. They resorted to abuse of the Opposition and the Press. Those are the classic arguments used by a Government who realise that they have a weak case, as the present Government have on this issue.
The justification for this debate came in the speech of the Minister of State when he announced that the Regulations for the increase in charges of 25 per cent. for teeth and spectacles would be laid tomorrow and would come into operation on 11th August. It has taken this debate to get the Government to announce their policy and the timing of it.

Mr. Crossman: Perhaps I should explain that the debate postponed the announcement. We decided, in order not to put the debate out of order, to announce the date for the laying of the Regulations immediately after the debate rather than at the end of last week as we intended.

Mr. Dean: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. All we are differing about now is a few days. In other words, we are in very much the same position on these Regulations as we were a few weeks ago on how the contributions would be raised to secure the substantial sum of money which was required. It required an Opposition Motion on that occasion for the ugly truth to come out that £430 million was required, which was a substantially higher sum than the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his Budget speech. It required a debate initiated by the Opposition to elicit the ugly truth from the Government on that occasion. Today, it has required another debate initiated by the Opposition to elicit from the Government when the Regulations are to be introduced and from what date the new charges are to operate. That, in itself, is ample justification for the debate. But it is a great pity that the Opposition have to use their valuable time to get matters announced which the Government should have announced a great deal earlier.
The Government are now getting the worst of all worlds. On 5th May the right hon. Gentleman announced that these charges were to be increased. But

he has waited two months before laying the Regulations and saying when they will come into operation. The result is that he must inevitably have lost valuable revenue for the National Health Service which at that time he said was urgently required.
What were the two main reasons which the right hon. Gentleman gave on 5th May? The first was that the increased revenue,
will help to keep total public expenditure within the limits set out in the White Paper `Public Expenditure 1968–1969 to 1970–1971'—Cmnd. 3936".
That was the first and very important reason that he gave: to keep public expenditure within bounds.
The second reason was that,
this method of saving £3·5 million is far less damaging than would be cutting back one of the increases in the Service to which we are committed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th May, 1969; Vol. 783, c. 42–4.]
It is perfectly clear that, owing to the delay and the confused statements that we have had, the right hon. Gentleman has almost certainly lost, for this year at any rate, most of the revenue which he would otherwise raise. By introducing the new charges from the beginning of August he has lost a good deal of the time. It is quite certain that a lot of people have, quite naturally, bought their glasses and their teeth in anticipation of these charges being introduced. This is an example of muddle and confusion which means that two important objectives which the right hon. Gentleman set himself in May are very unlikely to be achieved this year.
The right hon. Gentleman may try to laugh this off as a small issue, simply because a small sum of money is involved. But in our view this raises very much larger issues. Here is a classic example of a Minister who has failed and made a muddle on small issues and on small sums of money. Inevitably, one asks: can he be entrusted with the larger sums of money which are involved in the Department over which he has charge?
The muddle over these Regulations is merely the most striking recent example of confusion in the financial stewardship of the very substantial sums of money over which the right hon. Gentleman has charge. I thought that my noble Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel)


was being very kind to the right hon. Gentleman when he referred to his "amiable incompetence". We are dealing here with the biggest spending Minister of the lot. According to the figures for 1969–70, for health, welfare, and social security, the right hon. Gentleman is responsible for the expenditure of £5,314 million a year, far and away greater than for education, far and away greater than for defence, and far and away greater than for any other Ministry.
The right hon. Gentleman is not only the major spending Minister, but also the major taxing Minister, because, through the National Insurance Scheme, through the health stamp, through contributions of various kinds, and through charges of various kinds, he has power to raise very substantial sums of revenue by what are, in effect, forms of tax. At the moment the right hon. Gentleman is seeking authority from Parliament to raise £430 million extra for pensions and other benefits.
When one considers the burden involved for the employers—just to give one example—one finds that between November, 1964, and November of this year, on the flat rate stamp alone, plus S.E.T., which today is going up by 28 per cent., plus redundancy contributions, the employer's stamp is going up from 9s. 8d. to 65s. 11d., an increase of no less than 620 per cent. When one considers some of the other elements for which the right hon. Gentleman is responsible, one can see why we are disturbed over the muddle which he has made over this matter of £31 million on charges.
We are told that in the next Session the right hon. Gentleman is to come forward with another expensive Bill for the future of pensions and other benefits, and the right hon. Gentleman hinted during the debate last week that he may well, in due course, if he is still in his Ministry, be asking the workpeople of this country and their employers to pay additional sums through the National Health Service contribution for the service which we are now discussing.
These things add up to formidable sums of money for which the right hon. Gentleman is responsible. How can we be expected to have confidence in his financial stewardship over these substantial

sums when he cannot even avoid the hopeless muddle and confusion that we have had over the increase of £¼ million in charges for teeth and spectacles?
We are dealing in the National Health Service, as indeed in all the other services for which the right hon. Gentleman is responsible, with services which, inevitably, have a substantial built-in growth factor. Advances in medical science are, happily, bringing possibilities of cure and alleviation of disease and suffering which were unheard of a few years ago, but the cost of these is growing year by year, and substantial additional sums of money have to be made available somehow merely to ensure that we stay where we are, let alone try to take full advantage of the new techniques which are becoming available to us.
What we on these benches fear, and what no speech either from the Treasury Bench, or from the back benches opposite, has answered, is that the right hon. Gentleman is piling burden on burden without looking at the thing as a whole, and without sufficiently assessing the effect which these burdens are having on industrial costs and on the individual who, as he becomes more prosperous, may well wish to have more choice for himself in the way that he spends his money.
Why has the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day the continuing problem of trying to cut down on consumer demand, which often involves the sucking in of imports? One of the reasons is that the compulsory contributions of various kinds which the right hon. Gentleman is piling on the individual are making it much more difficult for him to exercise that freedom of choice in the expenditure of his own money which we on this side of the House want to see.
I fear that this applies particularly to pensions, although to some extent in this field, too. The right hon. Gentleman is increasingly getting into a position where he is writing cheques which he expects and intends that our children will honour in the next generation. That is the height of financial irresponsibility. It is that ugly background of no confidence in the right hon. Gentleman's ability to manage this vast spending Ministry which amply justifies our Motion.

9.16 p.m.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: I intend to be brief so that the Front Bench speakers can wind up the debate in proper time. I am rather puzzled, each time I listen to hon. Members opposite on the subject of the Health Service, about what exactly they want. They seem to complain bitterly about the costs of the Health Service and then they complain bitterly if the Minister seeks a method by which these costs shall be met, no matter how slight. What is rather significant is that at no time will hon. Members opposite say what they would do. This is a matter of importance on which the public are entitled to an answer, because we are now celebrating the twentieth anniversary of the Health Service.
Three days ago, the Health Service reached its twentieth birthday. I understand that in 1949 expenditure on the Health Service was about £455 million. Today, it is approximately £2,000 million, a record of great growth and expansion. When hon. Members opposite charge the Minister with incapacity to deal with the financial affairs of the Service, they have to bear in mind, as my right hon. Friend said last Tuesday, that it is the Service itself which demands more and more of the resources to meet more and more of the expenditures involved in servicing and equipping the Health Service.
The hospital programme has doubled during the past five years. Wherever one looks in the Health Service, there is a story of success and growth. It is because of this success and growth that I must underline the concern of hon. Members who have held dearly to the principles of the Service over many years. We see here an unreasonable attempt to deal with the financing of a highly marginal position, which in terms of health cannot be measured, by introducing Regulations of the kind which my right hon. Friend has suggested that he will be introducing at an early date.
I must confess, with my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt), that much as I applaud my right hon. Friend for all he has done in social security and the Health Service, for all that he has created in terms of encouraging improvements in these services, I cannot absolve myself from the responsibility

to adhere to the principles which were fought for long years ago.
When the Regulations are placed before the House, I, like my hon. Friend, will not support them. I shall fail to support them with great regret, not in a sense of rancour, the kind of language used in the national Press, or the cheap opportunism which has developed in the nature of the subject of the debate, but with regret that my right hon. Friend, who has possibly done more than any other—and there are many—for the Health Service, should, unhappily, be placed in a situation in which one of his supporters and others would have to disagree with him.
It is not with a question of muddle that I am concerned, but with a slight, unimportant interference in something in which I have believed for a long time. When I say, "unimportant" I am not talking about the principle, I mean that the increases will produce no results, but might even prove far more expensive to deal with, leading to the waste of the time of officials and many others. The prescription charges have already shown this.
Today's debate does not appear to have been necessary. We shall deal with the principle on another day when the Regulations are placed. It is absolutely necessary to debate them so that those hon. Members who are concerned about where they stand may show their hand. But all the time that I have listened to this evening's debate I have been dismayed to feel that, after all, it was not necessary.

9.22 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: As my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) pointed out, the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) and the Minister of State joined in the classic defence of those whose case is too thin to stand upon its own of abusing the other side's lawyer and accusing us of being frivolous, of moving the Motion and having no policy to put before the House.
I am deeply touched by the Secretary of State's dependence on us for any form of constructive policy for Health Service finances, a dependence which was clearly recognised by the Daily Telegraph in its leading article. The Minister of State


forebore to mention that although it was critical of the Opposition and myself for not bringing forward our ideas at present, it was even more critical of the right hon. Gentleman for not having any.
The tone of the admirable Opposition speech from the Government benches add point to the case. The hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) took a slightly different view. He appeared to defend not only the Opposition's lawyer, but also his own side's, while damning everybody's case, which perhaps shows the niceness of his nature, if not the logic of his approach.
The right hon. Gentleman has accused me of asking too many questions. "I have never heard so many questions asked in one speech", he said. He should not be very surprised. I have never known a Minister who left so many questions unanswered, a planner with so many plans incomplete, frustrated or quietly abandoned, or with so little idea of how to pay for them. He has been asked some more questions tonight. As my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North pointed out, the answer we received is a justification in itself, if any other were needed for this debate.
Just as it took a Motion from this side of the House to force out of the Government any details of how they would finance the increase in pensions, so it has taken a Motion from this side to force them to come to a decision on the timing and content of the Regulations. The right hon. Gentleman has not yet answered the question as to whether it will be permanent or temporary, how much he has lost in the delay, or other minor details of that kind. This constant embarking on programmes with no idea of how they are to be financed and how the expense is to be met is the height of irresponsibility.
The criticism from these benches has been mainly of the muddle which this method has shown, although we respect, particularly, the criticisms of the hon. Member for Willesden, West on the charges themselves as a matter of principle. He put his case with his usual sincerity and passion. Although we disagree with him, at least we can respect his consistency and his sense of purpose.
Our Motion describes the method which the Government have adopted as a muddle. So it is—although admittedly on a relatively small scale. It is not the grandiose conception which we have come to expect from the great compositions of these artists of muddle—the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the First Secretary. It is not even typical of the Secretary of State at his best. Nevertheless, in a small way it is a work of art, a minature of a muddle, typical because it shows in microcosm the whole of the principle underlying this muddle, not so much unrealist as anti-realist. It is worth examining because in that sense it is typical of the Government's handling, not of spending—they do that well enough—but of paying the bill. That is one of the main points to the debate—the irresponsibility of embarking not only for the present but also for the future on a course of spending with very little idea of where the money is to come from.
We know that the right hon. Gentleman can do better, especially when collaborating with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on raising money for pensions. But even the present miniature muddle shows all the characteristics which we have come to expect from this great master of double think and double talk. We had the announcement of the increases and the justification of the charges in his statement that they were better than cutting back the Health Service. There was a reference especially to mental hospitals and to hospitals for the mentally subnormal. Later, this was apparently changed, according to the Press report of the Labour Party meeting of 14th May, at which it was stated that the increased charges were to pay for comprehensive schools.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Chataway) referred to that and rightly said that it could not be laughed off in the way in which the Minister of State attempted to laugh it off. In passing, may I tell my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester how pleased we are to see him back, and congratulate him on this second edition of his maiden speech.
The final confusion in this incident rested on the timing. It is no good the hon. Member for Willesden, West referring to a great non-event in the newspapers and criticising newspapers for


printing events which had not happened and could not have happened. This confusion arose in the minds of the Press not because of their own fallibility, but because of the muddle and confusion created by the Government not only in this but in many other matters. Even the second part of the Department's statement could be held to be at least open to doubt as to what it meant when taken in conjunction with the first half.
On 21st June the Department denied very firmly that there was any doubt about the timing or any question of the Regulations being postponed. It was dismissed by the Department as mere speculation. We accept that. But the statement went on to say that the timing of the Regulations had not even been discussed. Surely no one is to be blamed for taking that to mean that there was as yet no question of their being laid before the House.

Mr. Pavitt: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the confusion was added to by the kite flying which went on in the Press and that if that kite flying had not occurred there would not have been so much confusion?

Mr. Macmillan: If, not for the first time, the Government make an announcement and give it a sense or urgency and then nothing is done or said for a considerable time, can one blame the newspapers and commentators, in the face of known opposition to such charges by hon. Gentlemen opposite, for speculating on the possible outcome?
It was known that a "No" lobby existed and that 100 names supported a Motion calling for the Government not to take this step. They were the names of hon. Gentlemen opposite. No wonder the Press speculated about the outcome of the operation because of the success of Government back benchers in deflecting their Government from the task in hand. The Press were bound to wonder whether, once again, the Government would climb down and run away.
I congratulate the Secretary of State on being the first among his colleagues to stand firm against the pressure of his back benchers. [Interruption.] I gather that my hon. Friends think that it may be a little early to say that he is standing firm; but, for the time being, the congratulations stand.
All this is being done for £3½ million in a full year. Is it worth it—to inflict what Professor Abel Smith has called a bitter blow for Labour supporters? No wonder the hon. Member for Willesden, West talked about a change of direction and pointed out that nobody had claimed that this was necessary to restore confidence in the Government. In this connection, this quotation is interesting:
That is prescisely the reason why we have so passionately objected … from below the Gangway. There might have been a case … to introduce measures of economy into the Health Service. Indeed, I myself have often wondered whether a small token payment has not a great deal to be said for it as a way to encourage people to think twice before they let a dentist take out their teeth. But a 50 per cent. charge is something totally different from a charge designed to discourage extravagance."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th May, 1951; Vol. 487, c. 1689.]
That was said by the right hon. Gentleman the present Secretary of State for Social Services when he was on the back benches and occupying a seat below the Gangway. He said that in the debate of 1951, but are we not discussing a charge of about 50 per cent.? However, things have changed since then. Now he is faced with the realities of government and he has had to come to terms with the truth.
Perhaps the tragedy of the party opposite, and particularly those who support the hon. Member for Willesden, West, is that it is always too late. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have had some noble aspirations. They have been noble in the past, but their efforts have always been frustrated by economic circumstances. They always will be because of the economic muddle—[Interruption.]—which even the protestations of the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) cannot disguise.
We can see how it happened. The debts were mounting, the pressures were growing, as they always grow, the brokers were on their way and the I.M.F. meeting was about to take place. Cuts had to be made and the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister accepted—the Prime Minister made this clear in a long Parliamentary Answer—that the cuts had to be shared among the various Departments. All Ministers had to make a contribution.
We must not forget that the Ministry of Defence has had to give up carriers and aeroplanes. The Foreign Office has


given up everything east of Suez. The Ministry of Education has had to take action on school milk and school meals. It was the time for the Ministry of Health, and teeth and spectacles were selected, although the right hon. Gentleman had said that there would be no further charges.
The Minister of State was rather disingenuous in his defence of what has happened, because he mentioned, as if it had been said in the course of Question and Answer, that his right hon. Friend had been referring to a range of charges. But the word "range" was not mentioned throughout the supplementaries and answers to the Government on this subject.
The last sentence of the Question which the right hon. Gentleman was asked, and the rest does not alter the sense, was:
Will he in future resist this individual selectivity principle which is so urgently demanded by hon. Members opposite?
The Secretary of State replied:
If my hon. Friend is asking me whether I expect further charges to be imposed on the Health Service, the answer is No.' ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th April, 1969; Vol. 781, c. 771.]
I am sure that all of us on this side accept the right hon. Gentleman's explanation. After all, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer were to say that he did not intend to put any further taxation on smokers, it would be quite clear that he did not intend to tax pipes, cigarette holders, lighters, or cigarette cases. No one would have the smallest excuse for believing that the intention was not to increase tobacco duty.
But this use of words cannot be anything but confusing. It is quite clear that in his own mind the Secretary of State meant that there would be no extra charges, but he did not make it clear to the House that he was referring entirely to widening the range, and not to raising the charge. He speaks like Humpty Dumpty:
When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.
One can see how it happened. It always happens like this. It has happened like this before, and it illustrates one of the great differences between the two parties. We are willing to take the measures

sometimes when we can foresee them before economic necessity dictates; in anticipation of difficulties. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite have never yet done anything of this sort except under the pressure of events which take matters outside their control and force them to go further in the end than they would have done in the beginning had they acted with sense and wisdom.
One can have great sympathy with the hon. Member for Willesden, West, and other hon. Members who agree with him. They seem to be in a minority in clinging to the old Socialist belief in universal free benefits at the point of use, in nationalisation, and in the great doctrines of the Labour Party. But the Labour Government have abandoned these, and they have nothing to put in their place. They have no policy, no principles, no honour left—nothing except expediency.
It happened last time: the debts mounting—they were less then than they are now—aspirations frustrated, and the late Mr. Gaitskell forced to bring in prescription charges, against his will, no doubt, and against the will of the majority of the party. Then, of course, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, regardless of the fact that their majority was but six, resigned, and attacked the Government mercilessly, to the loud applause and with the enthusiastic support of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State.
We shall not, when they come, vote against the Regulations, because we have always believed in a balance, in how people pay for the social services, including health. As my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North pointed out, it is to attempt to get this balance that our policies will be directed. But the right hon. Gentleman has so far done nothing but add piecemeal to his social spending, and its financing. We had the prescription charges—first abolished and then brought back higher. There was muddle, if ever there was.
We had the same sort of thing with school meals—changes proposed and, seven months later, dropped. We had family allowances: two separate announcements within six months—and, of course, devaluation in between them—up 7s., up 3s., and then clawing back more in taxation. We had the


same thing with means tested unemployment benefit for occupational pensioners, which the Government accepted. Draft Regulations were laid—what has happened to them? There has been no further action and no further action, either, on the Government's proposal to save £17 million by putting sickness benefit on to the employer for the first three days.
Now there are these extra charges. This does not add up to a serious attempt to solve the problems of financing the Health Service. This is not an attempt to grapple seriously with the problem of who pays what and how and when. It does not add up to a Socialist policy, or even a social policy. It is nothing but a muddle by men without a philosophy, without principles and without a policy.

9.40 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Richard Crossman): This has been a strange little debate, very strange and even littler. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) that the only thing to say about it is that it is not necessary. However, I have enjoyed listening to it and I shall enjoy replying to it, but with regret when I compare it to the days when I was at the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and had opponents who attacked me on issues which really mattered. We had two censure debates then, one about public sector housing and one about owner-occupation and we fought out the real issues, but the striking fact about the Opposition when debating health and social security under the merged Ministry is that they funk, evade and crawl round every issue.
One of the features of this debate has been that the issue was so narrow and pitably small that nearly everyone who has spoken from the back benches has been forced to discuss subjects which are miles away from the Motion of censure. We had an interesting speech from the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) about the Regulations bringing in prescription charges, and my hon. Friend the Minister of State moved well away from the Motion and spoke about all that the Government are doing in this field. I was grateful to the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) who gave up

discussing the Motion after four or five minutes and gave us an interesting disquisition.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) tried to keep to the Motion, but it was obviously as exhausting and tiring for him to do that as it will be for me to fill in the time between now and 10 o'clock talking about this contemptible, pitiable, ridiculous, little Motion. I shall do my best, and I deal first with the speech of the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan), who told us that the decision to have this great, powerful Motion was that it would force the Government into action. Without the Tory Motion of censure we would not have tabled the up-rating Bill. This exaggerates the importance of the spoken word in the House of Commons. Having once announced that we were to pay a 10s. benefit, we were going through with the Bill even despite this delightful censure Motion debated for three-and-a-half hours before we go into Recess.
We have now had three debates on the new merged Ministry. One was last week, an Adjournment debate on financing the Ministry. I now understand that it was taken then because the Prime Minister was absent at the Investiture or it would have been a Motion of censure, according to the noble Lord the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel). This was an example of Tory chaos and muddle, but it was a nice debate because, although we got nothing out of the Opposition, it gave hon. Members on the Government side the chance to make serious speeches about how to finance the Health Service. We hardly expected anything serious—nor did the Daily Telegraph—from hon. Members opposite. Apart from these two delicious procedural Motions there was the Motion to have an uprating Bill.
The whole complaint of hon. Members opposite was why did we delay between the announcement in the Budget and the uprating Bill? When we came to the Bill and waited for constructive opposition, hon. Members opposite came in late and tiddled away. They have been tiddling along upstairs ever since, with no constructive, serious opposition at all.
I waited to hear the clear Opposition view on charges. We got it in the last debate when I thought that the hon.


Member for Farnham had meant something definite. When I thought that he believed in charges, he leapt to his feet and what did he say? He said he was not advocating increased charges but was putting forward the view that they could be significant. That went down badly with the Daily Telegraph. Then we had the hon. Member for Hertford today saying that he believed passionately that charges were the important thing. We can take our choice in the Opposition, as between Powellite and Heathite, not knowing on which side we shall find anybody.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the debate."] I am answering the debate, but it has been pitiable stuff to listen to.
However, I will get down to answering the specific charges. It will embarrass the hon. Gentlemen. I take charge No. I among the items on the indictment. It is alleged firstly that before I announced the increased charges I gave an assurance that no charge would be increased, secondly that between the announcement and the laying of the Order there had been delay, and thirdly it is alleged that between the announcement and the implementation of the Order there had been vacillation and change of plan. I will take each of these and give them the serious consideration which each deserves.
I will take the first, namely, that I gave assurances before the Order that there would be no increases. Here I will simply read a passage to the House, because I was a little resentful about what the noble Lord said. He did not exactly say that I told a lie, but he said that I had slithered through. Here we have the actual passage. This was in a supplementary on prescription charges when I was asked whether I would agree that
this exercise in the principle of individual selectivity in the social services is not useful in terms of money or manpower.
Would I in future
resist this individual selectivity principle which is so urgently demanded by hon. Members opposite?
I replied:
If my hon. Friend is asking me whether I expect further charges to be imposed on the Health Service, the answer is 'No.'
It is clear that when I am asked the question, "Did I think that the selectivity principle would be extended to other charges?", I said that, of course, it would not.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Crossman: Perhaps we could go further—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a quiet debate. We must be fair to both sides.

Mr. Crossman: After this, the noble Lord got up and said:
Is there any intention to increase prescription charges?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th April, 1969; Vol. 781, c. 770–1.]
and I said, "No" I should have thought that it was perfectly clear what I said, so we can get rid of the accusation that the assurances had been given before.
We come to the major issue, the issue of the charge of delay. The hon. Member for Somerset, North, who said today that between the announcement of the Regulations and the carrying out of them there was a serious delay. He said that as a result of that delay we had lost most of the revenue we could have raised this year. I tell him that he has miscalculated. It is true that I am an optimist and aimed at £1·7 million in 1969–90 and £3·5 million in the following year. But it is also true that we are now laying the Regulation to come into effect on 11th August, and I reckon that we shall obtain £1·4 million in Great Britain in that year. So we have lost that difference in those two months.
We have to allow four weeks between the laying of a Regulation and bringing it into effect because of the need to consult the professions, arranging for the documents to be printed and distributed, and so on. So the operative date is 11th August and the calculation we make is that we should get out of it £1·4 million.
I now want to deal with the major charge, the charge by the noble Lord that I had caused chaos in the Department—"chaos", "unconditional surrender", "muddle" and "destruction". He said that there had been constant changes of mind to and fro during this disastrous period and that they had created chaos. I thought that I would take that seriously and go through it to see what the chaos was. He quite rightly said that he had read it in the Press. I admit that it makes a rollicking serial. One day, the Secretary of State announces his firm decision. Then on 24th June, after a week or two of parliamentary punishment and a fortnight's holiday, he suddenly changes his


mind, forgets to tell the Cabinet, and gets rapped for his pains. That is the description in the Press.
On Thursday 26th, he changes his mind again and tells the Leader of the House to announce the laying of the Regulations in the next week's business. The Leader of the House says nothing, proving that the Secretary of State has changed his mind again. On Sunday, the Government finally sweep the plans to raise the charges under the carpet, but two days later they are going to announce them on the day of the Investiture.
That is the Press report of those 10 days. I shall tell the House what happened, relating it to what was said, because it is an interesting example of what was called news creation in the good old days of psychological warfare. It is interesting to a psychological warrior to have his techniques applied against himself and to see what happens.
It all started on the evening of 23rd June, when Mr. George Clark told me that he had an absolutely red-hot tip from a source which was bound to be taken seriously that the charges were definitely deferred. I had very little time, and I said that there was not a word of truth in the story. Not unexpectedly, on reading The Times next day, after my categorical denial, The Times lead headline on the front page, was:
Charges for glasses and teeth deferred.
The Government is delaying the introduction of higher charges for spectacle lenses and false teeth to avoid … a clash"—
and the subheadline was:
Crossman grows cautious".
I read that with enormous interest. I felt that I was starting on the history of the greatest non-event in my public life. Absolutely nothing had happened in fact. The Times had done it. Naturally, the B.B.C., which always follows The Times, put it out as the day's first item, and in the Evening News that day John Dickinson wrote under the headline,
Teeth and specs—Crossman forgot to tell Cabinet".
Here was something we did not know about. It seems that the Cabinet had not been told and the news had been received with astonishment in other parts of Whitehall because there has been no Ministerial meeting to discuss the non-event, and once again it was concluded that I had

been acting off my own eccentric bat. It was a delicious feeling—here I was in fairy-land, seeing myself in a Tory spectacle of non-eventual action.
Then, in the Evening Standard:
Crossman sets new specs, teeth puzzle".
Then, in the Daily Sketch we had:
Tories get teeth into Crossman. The original plan to have the new charges operating in June has been dropped.
Next, there was a rather nice one on the Thursday 26th, with a firm announcement in the Financial Times, which had been fairly respectable up to then, but had to say something, telling us that the Leader of the House would make a firm statement that day that the Regulations for the charges would be laid, and then, when he did not make a firm statement, the next day another paper said, "No statement made".
That is how it went. Then on 27th June, the Daily Express had a headline:
Those charges for teeth and specs stay a mystery for M.P.s.".
It was growing in importance by then. Saturday, 28th June, was a blank day. Sport prevailed over serious politics and we were pushed out of the headlines and out of the papers. No reference to teeth and spectacles. No reference to my growing non-event. I felt sad, until Sunday, 29th June. On Sunday, of course, one always goes back to fiction somewhere or other. I read in the News of the World a most categorical new start to the story:
Wilson backs down on specs.
Government plans to raise charges for National Health false teeth and spectacles are being shelved. … the proposals are being swept under the carpet along with other moves unpopular in the Parliamentary Party.
That was interesting to me.
I close this little, happy story of the nicest non-event in my life by saying that the Communist Morning Star, which had been very quiet until then, celebrated 1st July by announcing that with my infallible sense of timing I had chosen Investiture day to lay the Regulations for the increased teeth and spectacle charges. When I did not lay them that day, the Daily Telegraph commented. On the front page, it said:
Teeth &amp; Specs Order For Next Week
while on the back page it said:
Crossman Vague On Teeth And Glasses Charges.


It was getting it both ways, with our happy Lobby correspondent on one side and the sketch writer on the other.

Dr. Winstanley: Since the right hon. Gentleman has told us that the charges are so slender, and that he has time on his hands, will he ensure that he leaves himself time to explain why it is necessary to increase the charges, and what purpose is to be fulfilled?

Mr. Crossman: I shall have ample time for the substance of this debate when we come to the Regulations. I agree with right hon. and hon. Members opposite that I must take their Motion seriously. It is not on the substance. It is on the muddle, the chaos, the unconditional surrender.
Since there are just a few minutes that I can fill in before the Division, I would say one thing more to hon. and right hon. Members opposite. I have mentioned psychological warfare, and I remember that during the Russian campaign, when we were in a very weak position and the Russians were retreating 100 miles a day, the only thing we could do in propaganda was to commit the enemy to advancing

so far by a certain date and announcing a defeat because they did not get there. We used to say that unless the Germans reached the Dnieper by 15th November or were not across the Bug by 20th December they would be sunk in the Russian snow. It was a tremendous success, at least with our listeners, and it raised our own morale by keeping us busy, because we did not dare deal with the substance.

I find the Opposition very silly. If they were serious they would deal with the substance of the Health Service, its administration and the crisis. They are not a serious Opposition and are not united. They keep their options open—to use a phrase they should have come to like—and while they are keeping them open they indulge in a little news creation. I advise the Press not to take its tips so gullibly from the Opposition benches next time.

Question put,
That this House regrets the muddle which has surrounded the proposed introduction of higher charges for dentures and spectacles:—

The House divided: Ayes 244, Noes 290.

Division No. 308.]
AYES
[9.58 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Chataway, Christopher
Glyn, Sir Richard


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Chichester-Clark, R.
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.


Astor, John
Clark, Henry
Goodhart, Philip


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Clegg, Walter
Goodhew, Victor


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Cooke, Robert
Gower, Raymond


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Corfield, F. V.
Grant, Anthony


Balniel, Lord
Costain, A. P.
Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Gresham Cooke, R.


Batsford, Brian
Crouch, David
Grieve, Percy


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Crowder, F. P.
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Bell, Ronald
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Currie, G. B. H.
Gurden, Harold


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Biffen, John
Dance, James
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Biggs-Davison, John
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Dean, Paul
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Black, Sir Cyril
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)


Blaker, Peter
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Body, Richard
Doughty, Charles
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere


Bossom, Sir Clive
Drayson, G. B.
Harvie Anderson, Miss


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hastings, Stephen


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Eden, Sir John
Hawkins, Paul


Braine, Bernard
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hay, John


Brewis, John
Emery, Peter
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Errington, Sir Eric
Heseltine, Michael


Bromley-Davenport, Lt. -Col. Sir Walter
Eyre, Reginald
Higgins, Terence L.


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Farr, John
Hiley, Joseph


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Fisher, Nigel
Hill, J. E. B.


Bryan, Paul
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Hirst, Geoffrey


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Fortescue, Tim
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Foster, Sir John
Holland, Philip


Bullus, Sir Eric
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Hordern, Peter


Burden, F. A.
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Hornby, Richard


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Gibson-Watt, David
Howell, David (Guildford)


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Hunt, John


Carlisle, Mark
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Glover, Sir Douglas
Iremonger, T. L.




Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Montgomery, Fergus
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Scott, Nicholas


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Scott-Hopkins, James


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Sharples, Richard


Jopling, Michael
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Silvester, Frederick


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Murton, Oscar
Sinclair, Sir George


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Kershaw, Anthony
Neave, Airey
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Kimball, Marcus
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Speed, Keith


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Nott, John
Stainton, Keith


Kirk, Peter
Onslow, Cranley
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Kitson, Timothy
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Stodart, Anthony


Lane, David
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Tapsell, Peter


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Temple, John M.


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut' nC' dfield)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Pardoe, John
Tilney, John


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Longden, Gilbert
Peel, John
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Lubbock, Eric
Percival, Ian
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Peyton, John
Vickers, Dame Joan


MacArthur, Ian
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Waddington, David


Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Pink, R. Bonner
Walker, Peter (Worcester)



Pounder, Rafton
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn, Sir Derek


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Walters, Dennis


Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Ward, Dame Irene


McMaster, Stanley
Prior, J. M. L.
Weatherill, Bernard


Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Pym, Francis
Wells, John (Maidstone)


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Wiggin, A. W.


Maddan, Martin
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Maginnis, John E.
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Marten, Neil
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Maude, Angus
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Woodnutt, Mark


Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Ridsdale, Julian
Worsley, Marcus


Mawby, Ray
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Wright, Esmond


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Robson Brown, Sir William
Wylie, N. R.


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Younger, Hn. George


Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)



Miscampbell, Norman
Royle, Anthony
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Russell, Sir Ronald
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Monro, Hector
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Mr. Jasper More.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Cant, R. B.
Edelman, Maurice


Albu, Austen
Carmichael, Neil
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Edwards, William (Merioneth)


Alldritt, Walter
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Ellis, John


Anderson, Donald
Coe, Denis
English, Michael


Archer, Peter
Coleman, Donald
Ennals, David


Ashley, Jack
Concannon, J. D.
Ensor, David


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Conlan, Bernard
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Evans, Ioan L. (B rm'h'm, Yardley)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Crawshaw, Richard
Faulds, Andrew


Bagier, Cordon A. T.
Cronin, John
Fernyhough, E.


Barnett, Joel
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Baxter, William
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir Eric(Islington,E.)


Bence, Cyril
Dalyell, Tam
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Foley, Maurice


Bidwell, Sydney
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)


Binns, John
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Ford, Ben


Bishop, E. S.
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Forrester, John


Blackburn, F.
Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Fowler, Gerry


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Davies, Ifor (Cower)
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Freeson, Reginald


Boston, Terence
Delargy, Hugh
Gardner, Tony


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Dell, Edmund
Garrett, W. E.


Boyden, James
Dempsey, James
Ginsburg, David


Bradley, Tom
Dewar, Donald
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)


Brooks, Edwin
Dickens, James
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Dobson, Ray
Gregory, Arnold


Brown, Bob (N 'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Doig, Peter
Grey, Charles (Durham)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Driberg, Tom
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Dunn, James A.
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Buchan, Norman
Dunnett, Jack
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Hamling, William


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Eadie, Alex
Hannan, William







Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Haseldine, Norman
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c' as)


Hattersley, Roy
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Hazell, Bert
Manuel, Archie
Roebuck, Roy


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mapp, Charles
Rogers, Goorge (Kensington, N.)


Heffer, Eric S.
Marks, Kenneth
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Henig, Stanley
Marquand, David
Rowlands, E.


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Ryan, John


Hilton, W. S.
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Hobden, Dennis
Maxwell, Robert
Sheldon, Robert


Hooley, Frank
Mayhew, Christopher
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Mendelson, John
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Millan, Bruce
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Howie, W.
Molloy, William
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Hoy, Rt. Hn. James
Moonman, Eric
Silverman, Julius


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Skeffington, Arthur


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Slater, Joseph


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Small, William


Hynd, John
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Snow, Julian


Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Moyle, Roland
Spriggs, Leslie


Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Janner, Sir Barnett
Murray, Albert
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Neal, Harold
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Newens, Stan
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip
Symonds, J. B.


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Norwood, Christopher
Taverne, Dick


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Oakes, Gordon
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Ogden, Eric
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W.Ham, S.)
O'Malley, Brian
Thornton, Ernest


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Oram, Albert E.
Tinn, James


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Orme, Stanley
Tomney, Frank


Judd, Frank
Oswald, Thomas
Tuck, Raphael


Kelley, Richard
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Urwin, T. W.


Kenyon, Clifford
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Varley, Eric G.


Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Padley, Walter
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Lawson, George
Palmer, Arthur
Wallace, George


Leadbitter, Ted
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Watkins, David (Consett)


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Park, Trevor
Weitzman, David


Lee, John (Reading)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Welibeloved, James


Lestor, Miss Joan
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Pavitt, Laurence
Whitaker, Ben


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Lipton, Marcus
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Whitlock, William


Lomas, Kenneth
Pentland, Norman
Wilkins, W. A.


Luard, Evan
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


McBride, Neil
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


McCann, John
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


MacColl, James
Price, William (Rugby)
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


MacDermot, Niall
Probert, Arthur
Winnick, David


Macdonald, A. H.
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


McGuire, Michael
Randall, Harry
Woof, Robert


McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Rankin, John
Wyatt, Woodrow


Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Rees, Merlyn



Mackie, John
Rhodes, Geoffrey
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Maclennan, Robert
Richard, Ivor
Mr. Joseph Harper and


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Mr. Ernest Armstrong.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Air Corporations Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Mellish.]

Orders of the Day — AIR CORPORATIONS BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 1

POWER TO PROVIDE FOR INVESTMENT OF PUBLIC DIVIDEND CAPITAL IN B.E.A.

(1) The Board of Trade may by order made by statutory instrument direct that as from such date, not being earlier than 1st April 1972, as may be specified in the order, the following provisions of the Air Corporations Act 1967, that is to say—
(a) section 14 (which provides for the investment of public dividend capital in B.O.A.C.); and
(b) section 17 (which imposes on B.O.A.C. a financial duty related to the said section 14),
shall have effect as if any reference in those provisions to the British Overseas Airways Corporation included a reference to the British European Airways Corporation.

(2) On the date on which an order under this section comes into force—

(a) section 20 of the said Act of 1967 (which lays down the existing financial duty of B.E.A.); and
(b) section 21 of that Act (which enables the Board to give directions as to the application of any revenue surplus of B.E.A.),
shall cease to apply to the British European Airways Corporation except as respects any direction already given under the said section 21; and as from that date section 22 of that Act (which lays down the borrowing limits for B.E.A.) shall have effect as if the amount to which the limit under that section applies included the aggregate amount of any sums paid to the Corporation under section 14 of that Act (but not any sum treated as so paid by virtue of subsection (3)(b) of the said section 14).

(3) In the application of section 14 of the said Act of 1967 to the British European Airways Corporation by virtue of an order under this section—

(a) subsection (1) shall have effect as if the reference therein to section 16 of that Act were a reference to section 22 of that Act; and
(b) subsection (3)(a) shall have effect as if the reference therein to the financial year ending on 31st March 1966 were a reference to the financial year in which the order comes into force.

(4) No Order shall be made under this section—

(a) except after consultation with the Corporation and with the approval of the Treasury; and
(b) unless a draft of it has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the

Commons House of Parliament.—[Mr. William Rodgers.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

10.10 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: I have not posted my list of selections, as is my wont. I thought tonight that it would be a work of supererogation. I have selected the three Government Amendments on the Notice Paper, all of which will be taken together.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. William Rodgers): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This Clause arises from what was a 'technical hitch in Committee. More votes were cast against than for what was then Clause 2 due to a temporary shortage of hon. Members on the Government side. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) saw a gap in our defences through which he marched his troops. I have no complaint about that. But I think that he was a little surprised at both the opportunity and the result. He and his hon. Friends will not be all that surprised if we seek to restore the Clause, which constitutes one third of the Bill.
We had a very useful discussion in Committee, when the reasons for this provision were properly probed. The hon. Gentleman then approached it in a tentative and constructive fashion and, I think, was interested mainly in its timing.
I will not be tempted now to repeat what I said in Committee to give a picture of the issue as we see it, though it did not then turn out to be as persuasive as I intended. Instead, I will try to sketch in the background to the provision and show why we attach importance to it. The House will forgive me if I cover part of the ground already covered in Committee, some of which will be familiar.
In common with most of the nationalised industries, B.E.A.'s main source of capital finance is the National Loans Fund, by way of redeemable fixed-interest bearing advances from the Board of Trade, with Treasury approval. In consequence, interest is payable on the whole of the Corporation's capital. Since 1965–66, when public dividend capital was introduced on an experimental basis for B.O.A.C., B.E.A. has urged for an


element of this new form of capital finance.
All the time, the House is moving to a better understanding of its relations with the nationalised industries, in order to ensure essential Parliamentary control of the major policy decisions while allowing a great deal of discretion to the managements to enable them to run their concerns on the best commercial criteria.
B.O.A.C. was chosen for the experiment because, following the 1965 reconstruction, its financial prospects were good. B.O.A.C. was keen to have p.d.c. because it would give the Corporation the same sort of capital structure as its main international competitors, most of whom have a proportion of equity. A flexible capital structure is appropriate to meet the fluctuating conditions of international airline operations which are intensely competitive and where earnings are subject to considerable peaks and troughs. Furthermore, because of the periodic re-equipment of world airlines with expensive aircraft—the principal reason for the Bill—there is a tendency for a cyclical movement in earnings in relation to capital.
So far, this experiment is working well. Over the four years 1965–66 to 1968–69, B.O.A.C. has paid, by way of interest on loan capital plus dividend on p.d.c., more than the interest payable on its total pre-reconstruction capital.
10.15 p.m.
Most of the reasons in support of public dividend capital for B.O.A.C. apply with equal force to B.E.A. But not at present—and I emphasise this—the most important one, which is commercial viability to the extent necessary to remunerate adequately its capital in the long-term. That is why the Government have undertaken to look into the possibility in 1971–72 of introducing p.d.c. for B.E.A. if it should then be clear that a second tranche of aid will not be needed.
In Committee, I was pressed on this point by the hon. Member for Woking. The phrase that he used was "mutual exclusion". He asked whether it was the case that there would be no p.d.c. if a second tranche was required? I said then that I could not commit the Government to what view they would take, but our present thinking was that these were alternatives—there would be no question of p.d.c. becoming available if the second

tranche was required. This is the element of the incentive which we regard as important and as a virtue in introducing p.d.c.
In Committee, reference was made to the attitude both of the Treasury and of the Select Committee on p.d.c. We were regaled with extracts from the Report of the Select Committee. I should like to rest this evening on what I said on 17th June, at c. 84, namely, that it was fair to say that the Treasury had moved some distance since the time the Select Committee took evidence, but that this was not the principal reason for doing now something which two years ago was thought to be inappropriate.
I made the point, drawing on the Select Committee's Report, that it had said that it would be inappropriate to see public dividend capital as a means of reconstructing the financial position of B.E.A. and that it would be wrong to use it for this purpose. I said that we agreed with this view, so that we must not look on public dividend capital as part of the reconstruction. This is available when the reconstruction is complete and, in our belief, that it would be available only if the second tranche is not taken up.
While it is true that p.d.c. will not of itself make any difference in economic terms to B.E.A.'s performance—it will not enable the Corporation to get more traffic or reduce its direct operating costs—there are good reasons for retaining the possibility of p.d.c. as a feature of the financial settlement with B.E.A.
First—and this is almost the key—the prospect provides an incentive to B.E.A. to manage without the second tranche of aid. B.E.A. is keen to have p.d.c. as a spur to efficiency and morale within the Corporation. We should not regard this as less important in a public Corporation than in a company in the private sector.
Secondly—and this is related to B.O.A.C. experience—in view of the fluctuating fortunes of the airline operating business, B.E.A. has an eye on the inevitable lean years when a failure to meet fixed interest obligations on total capital would be reflected as a loss in its accounts.
There is, of course, the swings and roundabouts element in public dividend capital. A sufficient proportion of p.d.c.


would enable it in those years to show a profit, however modest, and to waive or pay a minimal dividend on p.d.c. For this reason, the long-term viability is an essential prerequisite of p.d.c. B.E.A. would be expected to pay dividends greater over a period of years than fixed interest payable on the equivalent in loan capital.
I put it to the House that this is a necessary and very desirable part of the Bill. Necessary, not because it is part of a reconstruction, but because it provides an incentive for the greater efficiency that we wish to see, and because it moves B.E.A. over to a basis which, in the case of B.O.A.C., has already proved to be worth while.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: I am rather surprised that the Minister of State could have made that speech without any reference to the type of equipment which B.E.A. may be purchasing, or may have to purchase, to remain competitive in the next few years, because this strikes me as the key to B.E.A.'s future prosperity and the prospects of avoiding the second tranche, as the Minister calls it, in 1971.
We know that a critical decision is facing B.E.A. at the moment, whether to purchase the European Airbus, or the B.A.C. 311, or tthe Lockheed Tristar. These are the three choices available, because I dismiss the DC10 as unthinkable, as it has no British component in it. This is a major investment decision which has long-term implications for the financing of B.E.A. and whether we decide to carry on with our present financing structure of the Corporation or whether we replace it with p.d.c.
I wish that the Minister had gone into this in a little more detail and examined the pros and cons of this important choice before the Corporation, although, naturally, I should not have expected him to prejudge the decision which is before the board. I think that the House would have been grateful if he could at least have outlined the factors which have to be taken into account by B.E.A. in arriving at what could be a momentous choice for it in the air traffic market of the 'seventies.
We on this bench are in favour of p.d.c. I made a speech in 1962 advocating that p.d.c. should be applied

to the Airways Corporations and saying that it would be some incentive to them in comparison with the fixed interest capital that had always been the practice in those years. At that time the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) who was then the Minister of Aviation, dismissed the idea as being totally impracticable, but now we have seen it work extremely well with B.O.A.C., and I hope very much that B.E.A. will in the end have its financial structure reorganised on the same lines.
I think that if our Corporations are to compete on equal terms with the major airlines of the world, and, in particular, with those of the United States, they must have a capital structure which is defined on the same kind of criteria, that is to say, they must have an element of what I then called equity capital, which has now been christened by the Government p.d.c.—it does not matter what it is called; it is a question of semantics—so that one can examine their accounts and their trading practices on the same basis.
Frequently, when people have looked at, for instance, B.O.A.C. in comparison with Pan-American or T.W.A. there have been misunderstandings because they have looked at the profit which has been made by the Corporations after deduction of the fixed interest charges on their capital, whereas in the case of Pan-American or T.W.A. they have looked at the profit made before the remuneration of the dividends which are paid to their shareholders. This can lead to a misleading comparison between our Corporations and private enterprise airlines, which are not to the advantage of the Corporations, and show them up in a poor light. For this reason alone, and for the improvement in morale which it would secure for those who work in the Corporations, I hope that it will not be too long before B.E.A. enjoys the reorganisation of its capital along the lines that B.O.A.C. has already accomplished.
In talking to the workers of B.O.A.C. and people at all levels in the Corporation I find that it has had a marked effect in improving their competitive spirit, and I think that if we could manage to accomplish the same thing for B.E.A. it would make it in fact, as well as in name, the foremost airline in Europe.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: The Committee upstairs, of which I was not a member, arrived at a wise decision in rejecting the Clause and I hope very much that it will stay out of the Bill. I see no reason to upset the deliberations of the Committee in its wisdom, because in this instance it seems to have come to a proper conclusion.
I do not think that public dividend capital is meaningful or particularly good for morale. It tends to be a hoodwinking trick to persuade people that the Corporation is a commercial, viable, thrusting, competitive enterprise when it is nothing but a nationalised industry.
The reason why p.d.c. has been advanced as a good idea has been largely presentational—the point made by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) that it was good for people's morale that they were earning a return on equity rather than on fixed-interest stocks.
We have yet to see what the return on the capital will be. Until we know what rate of return on p.d.c. B.E.A. will be able to pay, it is difficult to assess how good this will be for morale It is only right that the Government should indicate what they expect and what sort of rate of return on the equity capital they would want if p.d.c. were introduced. This is where we get into trouble, because it brings into charge corporation tax.
To quote a hypothetical example, if B.E.A. were in a position to pay a 10 per cent. dividend on its public dividend capital. it would first have to pay corporation tax on its profits. As corporation tax is currently at 45 per cent., it would have to pay 4·5 per cent. of that dividend in ignominious tax before it could begin to pay a dividend. That would leave only 5·5 per cent. to be paid in dividend. Thus, when we come to the presentational point and the question of morale, even though the corporation might have earned and be able to pay 10 per cent., it would be able to declare only 5·5 per cent. It must be bad for morale, when one has earned 10 per cent., to be able to pay only 5·5 per cent.
I know that both B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. have such substantial tax losses that they will not have to pay corporation tax for quite a long time, but that is not a point

to raise morale. It does not make one feel very big to read at the foot of the accounts that there is no liability for corporation tax because tax losses from previous years are so great that no liability arises. That, therefore, is not very good for morale, either. The presentational point is a bogus one.
The Select Committee, of which I was a member, had in mind not only the question of capital reconstruction and that there was no wish to use p.d.c. as a means of glossing over the difficulties of the past. It also had in mind the feeling that p.d.c. was not a very good vehicle for expressing the enterprise and competitiveness of the Corporation.
The tax point is important. Hitherto, nationalised industries have not been expected to pay tax, nor have they been in receipt of investment grants and other general subsidies of that sort. It makes sense that where one has a wholly-owned Government industry, it should not have to pay tax and receive subsidies from the State; that would be simply taking money out of one pocket and putting it into another. It is not a meaningful operation and it does not get us much further. I do not think, therefore, that public dividend capital will serve us well.
The Minister said that the industry was so cyclical—its fortunes go up and down, profits are good and then they are bad—that it was wholly appropriate to have a form of capital which enabled the Corporation to reflect this.
10.30 p.m.
That is not what investment and the rate of interest is about. The way in which correct investments are made and assessed as to their correctness is simply whether the projected investment is likely to earn the rate of return which is the cost of the money. The reason people are prepared to put £100 million into an oil refinery or a new fleet of aircraft is that they assume that the investment will earn whatever is the going rate for money. Unless we set the Corporation a target to earn and tell it, "On your capital you must earn so much", it may well start taking wrong investment decisions.
It is not the outcome of the investment which matters, but what we expect to be the rate of return on the investment which we are to make. I believe that one of


the effects of introducing p.d.c. into the nationalised industry is that it will be more inclined to build up a fleet of aircraft—or a chain of steel mills, or of coal mines; in this case we are talking about aircraft—because it thinks it a good thing to have those aircraft because it wants to dominate the air network of the world, and not because it will earn any given percentage rate of return on the money which is invested.
This is a motivation point. The approach which the Government have developed previously of setting down rates of expected discounted cash flow return upon new investment is much more promising than this approach because on each occasion the test is, "Will the investment in this fleet of aircraft provide the right return to justify our having made the investment?" If we move to p.d.c. we shall have a situation in which we make the investment and then, after a number of years, justify it as best we can by paying whatever dividend is available. That is a wrong approach and will bring the wrong thinking to the Corporation's investment decisions. For that reason I oppose it.
The situation depends to such an extent on Clause 1 that I must make brief and passing reference to it. The Corporation is being compensated for having bought an aircraft which it does not think economic.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not discussing Clause 1.

Mr. Ridley: Mr. Speaker, I am making the passing reference which the Minister made, because the question is whether we shall need a second tranche; and whether it gets public dividend capital depends on whether it takes up the second tranche provided in Clause 1. I make the point only briefly—that the outcome of the profitability of the new aircraft which the Corporation is being subsidised to buy will make an enormous difference to whether it services public dividend capital well or badly.
In the case of the VCIO, which was forced on B.O.A.C., the Corporation demanded a subsidy of £30 million, and yet the margin of return from using the VC10 has never been disclosed to the House. Some people believe that the Corporation made as much as £50 million more than it expected by using the

aircraft. That is the upper limit of the possibilities. It may be that it made no more than it projected. But if there is a possibility of making that kind of extra profit the capital compensation received is virtually chicken-feed compared with the scale of the money involved. It is my contention that we do not know whether B.E.A. will need the £25 million or the £371 million, or any sum greater or less than that, with any degree of accuracy.
We are putting public dividend capital into the Corporation without the slightest idea of the true uneconomic cost of the Trident and Super 111s which we are asking it to buy. Thus, this whole operation seems to be highly inconclusive and pointless, because we have the wrong doctrine in subsidising an airline and then expecting it to make a particular return on public dividend capital without working out whether we have given it too much or too little subsidy.
As I said on Second Reading, we should subsidise the makers of the aircraft—that is, the aircraft itself—so that they will make an aircraft which will be saleable, rather than subsidise the Corporation so that it may buy it. After all, the commercialism of these airlines is a figment of the imagination. There seems to be no point in giving a State airline investment grants, which the Government are not giving it, or making it pay corporation tax, which the Government are asking it to pay under this provision, or giving it public dividend capital, and then trying to pretend that one is bolstering the morale of those who work in it by giving them the feeling that they are in a highly competitive situation in which they may go bankrupt or make a mint of money as a result of their successful operations.

Mr. Lubbock: The hon. Gentleman has several times said that the introduce of p.d.c. will not have an effect on the morale of the workers in the Corporation. Has he discussed this matter with the personnel and directors of B.O.A.C. and, if so, what replies has he received?

Mr. Ridley: I have discussed it with people in B.O.A.C., including the directors. I would not like, however, to bring them into the debate.
I am wondering if we, the representatives of the taxpayers, should lend this money on the terms stated. I do not


believe that we will get value for money by this exercise.

Mr. Lubbock: indicated dissent.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to disagree with me. I have no doubt that B.E.A. is in favour of this step. After all, everyone is in favour of receiving something to his advantage. I am arguing that this is not to the advantage of the taxpayer, who will have to find the money which is represented by this P.D.C.
We should not be giving the impression that a nationalised airline is like a private airline, which is liable to go bankrupt or make a lot of money and which is operating in a commercially competitive environment. It would be better to leave it on a fixed interest basis, and then we would all know where we were and exactly how much it was costing us over the years.
The Committee was wise to reject the Clause. I hope that the Government will not press the matter tonight, since if this provision were left out we would have a better Bill.

Mr. F. V. Corfield: Far from regarding this discussion as having resulted from a technical hitch in Committee upstairs, I am grateful to my hon. Friends who took part in the Committee's proceedings, and particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), for forcing the Government to remove the Clause and so giving us an opportunity to discuss this important concept on the Floor of the House.
The more I consider this question of public dividend capital—we have too many initials; I dislike calling it "p.d.c."—the more I feel like Alice, finding it "curiouser and curiouser". The matter needs close examination—this is no reflection on the assiduity of my hon. Friends in Committee—before we can accept that it is what it purports to be.
I understand that the basic idea is to introduce an element of challenge to management by giving an appearance of similarity to private enterprise. I gather that the size and regularity of the dividend is supposed to be an overt and public test of the success or otherwise of the Corporation. The Minister described

it as a spur to efficiency and morale. In Committee, the Minister also described the prospect of this concept, this public dividend capital, as an incentive.
I am very much in favour of incentives whether they be to management or to staff. I am also very much in favour of any valid yardstick by which the efficiency or inefficiency, the success or lack of success of a nationalised corporation can be judged or, if need be, compared with that of private enterprise.
The clear essential of any such yardstick is that it should be really valid in the sense that it reflects what it purports to reflect, and that there is no danger, as I believe there is here, of conveying an entirely false impression either of efficiency or of inefficiency, of success or lack of success. I just do not believe that the public dividend capital meets this requirement, or is anything like analogous to the equity holding in a private company, as it is made out to be, and as the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) believes it to be.
The great majority of the shareholders and potential shareholders of a joint stock company—and I prefer that term to "public company", because it is less confusing when we are talking about public corporations—however ignorant they may themselves be of financial matters, invest on the advice of stock- brokers or merchant bankers, or operate through unit trusts, which are generally managed by people with a highly specialised form of expertise.
The size and regularity of dividends in the private sector is only one of the factors in which these gentlemen are interested, and which they take into account in assessing the merits of a particular shareholding—let alone in comparing one share with another. They will also want to know the extent to which the dividend is covered by the earnings, and the company's growth prospects and, more important, the state of the reserves in relation to both current assets and liabilities and the need for future capital investment.
In the air transport industry there is, as we know, an impending demand for very heavy capital investment, owing to the imminence of the new generation of aircraft coming into service. That the air transport industry is capital-hungry, even if not capital-intensive, in the


ordinary jargon, arises from the fact that it is a very fast growing industry which, in itself, produces a constant demand for additional equipment; and from the fact that advanced technology so rapidly renders aircraft obsolescent and so rapidly increases the price of their successors.
In such an industry, the real test comes, and can only come, when the company has to resort to the market for its additional capital. Here, of course, the nationalised corporation is in a totally different position, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) remarked. It does not resort to the market, but to the Treasury, and because it is a nationalised industry it quite clearly cannot be left to get into real financial difficulties. As a result, it is never likely to resort to the Treasury in vain. This means, simply, that nine times out of ten it borrows at especially favourable rates as compared with the private company, and it borrows, also, quite irrespective of its commercial success in the past or of its outlook for the future, let alone of the market's assessment of its efficiency or prospects.
The dividends paid on this public dividend capital may be positively misleading as regards the success or otherwise of the nationalised corporation. It may be particularly misleading as a basis of comparison with privately-owned industry. I do not accept the contention put forward by the hon. Member for Orpington that this automatically will mean a fair comparison between B.O.A.C. and Pan Am. Pan Am also has a certain amount of loan capital and, so far as I know, it has not recently had a large part of that capital written off.
10.45 p.m.
If one takes the example of a privately-owned airline—and let us by all means take Pan Am if that helps—conscious of this impending heavy capital requirement for the financing of new equipment, it will be influenced in its financial judgment by, among other things, the state of the capital market. In some circumstances it may be the right policy to pay a relatively high dividend in the confidence that the major part of the capital required for re-equipment can be successfully raised on the market. But in other circumstances it may be more in the longer-term interests

of the shareholders to pay a much more modest dividend and to attempt to finance a higher proportion of the costs of re-equipment from reserves.
Here, the experience of B.O.A.C. is relevant. My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury drew attention to the fact that one of the reasons given for the introduction of this type of capital in B.O.A.C. was the cyclical nature of the trade. But in most private industries the aim of the directors in such circumstances is to have sufficient reserves to maintain dividends in the troughs rather than to put their investors to the inconvenience of having a wholly unestimatable income.
With regard to the experience of B.O.A.C., I would refer to the Board of Trade's paper "British European Airways: Observations by the President of the Board of Trade and by B.E.A. on the Second Report of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries" in Command 4000. Paragraph 8, after referring to the question of compensation payable to B.E.A. for being prevented from ordering the aircraft of their choice, ends by saying:
The proposed settlement leaves open the possibility of providing B.E.A. with such capital"—
that is, public dividend capital—
at a later stage, in the light of B.E.A.'s achievements by then, and of experience gained from its experimental introduction from B.O.A.C. …
That paper was published in April, 1969, almost contemporaneously with the publication of the Bill. We have yet to be told what experience has been gained from B.O.A.C. which makes it so imperative at present to include provision for this type of capital for B.E.A. It is still unclear to me what the merits of the type of capital are alleged to be as a result of the experiences of B.O.A.C. B.O.A.C. has been in a special position.
I appreciate that the Government feel we legislate fairly frequently on these matters, and there may be something to be said for looking forward and providing for certain of these things to be introduced in the future by the less cumbersome process of orders. That would be valid if it were not for the fact that we have the whole of the Edwards Report to consider and the almost certainty that at least some of its provisions will be


adopted by the Government, and that some time during the next year or so we shall have to have a major civil aviation Bill. The argument about saving legislation time in the House might apply in normal times; it does not apply at the moment.
Returning to the special position of B.O.A.C., it must not be forgotten that the financial reorganisation in 1965 included a substantial write-off of existing Government loan and the conversion of £35 million of the remainder into Exchequer or public dividend capital which has since been raised to £50 million.
Since then, B.O.A.C. has had a number of profitable years, for which we are very pleased, and last year it paid a so-called dividend of 20 per cent. But it is arguable that these high profits have been earned at the expense of the long-term interests of B.O.A.C., of British air transport and of our balance of payments, because they have undoubtedly been accompanied by a falling share of the traffic, particularly on the North Atlantic.
There has been a good deal of well-informed criticism to the effect that B.O.A.C. has been ill advised to place so much stress on the high load factors—for which, incidentally, the popularity of the VC10 is largely responsible—at the expense of losing a share in the market which it may well be vital for us to regain in the near future when the introduction of the 747 so vastly increases the capacity of B.O.A.C. and of its rivals on these routes.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must link what he is saying to the question whether we should provide p.d.c. for B.E.A.

Mr. Corfield: I understood that the whole object of the exercise, Mr. Speaker, was to copy what was done in B.O.A.C., and the justification was that it had worked well in B.O.A.C. With respect, Sir, I suggest that it is relevant.
It is not self-evident that an airline which, for example, might have decided to pay a lower dividend and retain a higher share of the market, and probably also retain a higher volume of reserves, would, in practice, be regarded as less successful than B.O.A.C., or B.E.A. if it

did the same Indeed, if the two airlines were competing in the market for capital, I have no doubt that B.O.A.C.—or B.E.A.—would be regarded as the less attractive of the two.
It seems to me that that points to the danger of the air Corporations themselves, both management and employees, as well as the general public coming to regard the dividend paid on public dividend capital as implying much more than it does and much more than it can. In that respect, it could be misleading and, far from contributing to morale, it could have the reverse effect.
It is relevant in this connection to refer to what the Edwards Committee had to say on the subject. After dealing with the matter at fair length, it said, in paragraph 483:
Even small changes which shift not merely the appearance but also the accountability of publicly-owned industries closer to the commercial pattern are to be welcomed.
If I were convinced that, in fact, the invention of public dividend capital—which my hon. Friend the Member for Woking referred to more accurately in Committee as variable interest loan capital—shifted the accountability of publicly-owned corporations closer to the commercial pattern, I should wholeheartedly join in the Edwards Committee's welcome. But I am not so convinced, and my lack of conviction is at least in part due to the complete lack of valid argument put forward by the Edwards Committee in support of its conclusion.
If public dividend capital does have this effect, it must follow that a private equity stake in the Corporation would have that effect to even greater degree. Turning back a page in the Edwards Report, we find that this concept of private equity capital to fulfil all the functions which we are told the public equity capital will have is dismissed by Edwards virtually out of hand. The crux of its argument is found in paragraph 476. It is a long paragraph, and I shall not read it all, but the second sentence reads:
There is a genuinely held view that top managers of an undertaking who have profit-orientated shareholders to satisfy will be under greater pressure to be cost-conscious than is the case where an undertaking is responsible to the State.
They will not raise any capital if they are not. This is the crux.
The paragraph goes on to say that those who have had experience of running nationalised industries are conscious of the pressures of Select Committees, Ministers and the like. It finishes by saying:
All the intervention, interference, efficiency audits, etc., in the world will never be as effective a spur to efficiency as the prospect of losing business to others who serve the customers better either in price or service.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot discuss on this new Clause the merit of the nationalised B.O.A.C. or B.E.A. versus private enterprise. The Clause seeks to add a certain method of financing B.E.A., and the hon. Gentleman's remarks must be linked with that.

Mr. Corfield: The Minister has argued as the merit of the equity capital largely that it makes part of B.O.A.C.'s capital equivalent with private enterprise. With respect, our argument seems to be valid.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not, however, nationalising or denationalising B.E.A. on this Clause.

Mr. Corfield: With respect, we are discussing the merits of equity holdings.
The paragraph concludes:
It is for that reason that … we have favoured as much competition and rivalry as can be economically contrived and regard this as being more important than ownership.
It is here that we see a failure to introduce the competition or the rivalry, though I regard that sentence as a complete non sequitur of the argument that precedes it. Whereas extravagant use of resources by a nationalised corporation or anybody else can gain business, it is only the airline that gains business and so conducts its financial affairs that it can raise its own capital on the market that faces any real test of efficiency, which is what we are after.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury, although he did not mention it, has carried out, partly on my behalf, an investigation into this matter and has discussed it with the managements of Lufthansa and K.L.M. They have no doubt that a private equity holding assists them, but they emphasise "private".
It is significant that in discussing mixed ownership of subsidiaries the Edwards Committee, at paragraph 480 of its Report, comes to a completely

opposite conclusion to the one I have just quoted. Therefore, I do not think that theirs is a very strong argument. The crux of the problem is, simply this: does the public or Exchequer dividend capital make a sensible or useful contribution to the sound financial administration of a nationalised corporation? As a general proposition I do not believe that it does, I do not even concede that it is a concept that can do no harm, because it introduces an apparent similarity to private industry which on examination proves to be wholly bogus. It can give rise to very misleading impressions and even judgments as to the success or otherwise of the corporation.
It is not even a challenge to management. After all, it is the Government that ultimately decide what proportion of the total earnings goes to reserves or dividend. The Minister said that we were all convinced that it was right to keep the broad policy control in Parliament and Government, while giving the maximum flexibility to management to manage according to the ordinary commercial criteria. But when the Government make the decision as to how much of the profits go to reserves and how much to the so-called dividend it is hardly management of a flexible nature in accordance with commercial criteria.

Mr. R. F. H. Dobson: But would not the Government be advised and have some discussion, with B.E.A. in this case, before making that judgment?

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Corfield: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that Governments at particular times are under all sorts of pressures other than the rights and interests of the airline. It might well be that in certain circumstances they would prefer to have a lot of money to be paid back, even though they had to give a further loan to B.E.A. later to meet capital equipment, and it would be wrong to lay down as an invariable rule that the Government must not take into account other criteria because crises do blow up of which we cannot foresee the form or extent.
If I had less suspicion of this concept, I would still believe that it would be wrong to apply it, or to provide for its future application to B.E.A. in current circumstances. Nationalised industries,


and B.E.A. in particular, are enjoined to achieve a target of 8 per cent. return on capital employed, a much less stringent test than for a private company which seeks to raise capital on the market.
To allow an opportunity of passing the dividend is to undermine, rather than to strengthen the genuineness of the competition and rivalry which the Edwards Committee, rightly in our view, was so anxious to ensure. To encourage a high dividend, on the other hand, runs the risk of grossly misleading the public and employees whose morale this is supposed to help.
It is therefore, not our intention to divide the House, but I again express my gratitude to my hon. Friends for making this debate possible, because it is right to put on record that we do not feel in any way enamoured of this concept, nor do we feel in any way committed in future; and it is more likely to fall to us than to this Government to decide whether to implement this provision.

Mr. William Rodgers: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) was schizophrenic in some of his remarks. He spoke of the need for the Corporations to have commercial freedom providing that no one could be deceived into thinking it was like the private sector. That was also the burden of what the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) said. He thought that the real danger was that the shadow would be taken for the reality; that commercialism was a figment of the imagination. In this respect, the critics of public dividend capital have been divided, in one way with justification. Our experience of public dividend capital is new and it is reasonable to say that we must see how we go and make future decisions as they are seen to be required.
The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South asked how B.O.A.C. was doing. It paid a dividend of 20 per cent. or £10 million for 1967–68 and, for 1968–69 will be paying a dividend of 25 per cent. or £12 million. Over the four years 1965–66 to 1968–69, B.O.A.C. has paid, by way of interest on loan capital plus dividends on p.dc., more than the interest payable on its total pre-reconstruction capital.
The new Clause says that
the Board of Trade may by order made by statutory instrument direct that as from such date, not being earlier than 1st April, 1972 …
and the House knows that we are looking some distance ahead. There are safeguards. I am glad that this Clause is not being pressed to a Division.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 2

CONSEQUENTIAL FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

Amendments made: No. 1, in page 3, line 15, leave out 2 ' and insert:
'(Power to provide for investment of public dividend capital in B.E.A.)'.

No. 2, in page 3, line 22, leave out 2(2) ' and insert:
(Power to provide for investment of public dividend capital in B.E.A.) (2)'.—[Mr. William Rodgers.]

11.5 p.m.

Mr. William Rodgers: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill is now as good as when it received its Second Reading and better than it was an hour ago. I hope that it will commend itself to the House.

11.6 p.m.

Mr. Tim Fortescue: I wish to make briefly a point, made in Committee and finally rather grudgingly conceded by the Government, because I want it to be on the record of the House.
At first sight, the Bill appears to convey that B.E.A. is to have an advantage of £25 million. In fact, as will be seen by reading subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 1 in conjunction, it will have the benefit of considerably more than this sum, because it is to have £25 million added to its revenue under subsection (3) and to have its debt reduced by £25 million under subsection (2).
Over the period of years to which these subsections refer, the interest of the sum which will have been reduced from its debt will amount to £5½ million and, therefore, the first tranche of this arrangement will give it £30½ million rather than the £25 million which appears at first sight. On the second tranche, under subsection (4), where £12½million


is referred to, B.E.A., if that tranche is activated, will receive an additional £1,850,000 from the reduction of interest on that sum, making a total of £14,350,000.
Thus, the total amount which could be made available under the Bill is not £37½ million, which appears at first sight, but £44,850,000. This point is well worth making. It was at first resisted by the Government in Committee, but at last they told us that this matter was taken into account when the original sums were done. This was not entirely convincing to me, but now that it is on the record of the House perhaps we are all clear about it.

11.8 p.m.

Mr. Donald Williams: The Bill has been brought about by the necessity for a capital reconstruction of B.E.A., which has been based to a great extent upon a policy agreed by the House—that B.E.A. should fly British. That is something which everyone here has supported. As a result, a form of compensation had to be made available to B.E.A. and one of the great problems we have met is how the calculation of compensation was made.
We now find that there is a first tranche of compensation of about £25 million, plus the relief or voiding of the interest thereon in the steps by which this sum is to be given. We understand this to be essential compensation for the fact that B.E.A. has not got the aircraft it would like to have now, but will have certain aircraft it wants in the future. The Bill goes further and says that if, perchance, B.E.A. is not viable by 1972, then it shall be relieved of its indebtedness to the extent of another £12½ million, together, of course, with the voiding of the interest on that sum.
The great problem is how and on what basis this compensation has been fixed. The Minister of State said in Committee:
I have no reason to believe that the calculations made a year ago were not made on the best available evidence."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 12th June, 1969; c. 21.]
I believe that we would all accept what he said there. But hon. Members have very little information upon which to make a reasoned understanding of what the Minister is proposing in the Bill,

and it does come at a time when—as I have complained in Committee and will complain again in the House—the latest information that we have is based upon figures available at 31st March, 1968. It is quite apparent, when one looks at the accounts of B.E.A. at that time, that B.E.A. has incurred capital commitments of a very large sum of money—I believe over £63 million at that date.
As I pointed out then, this means that B.E.A. will need to have further very substantial advances from the Board of Trade to meet its current payments on capital account, and will, therefore, be meeting ever-increasing interest charges on the new money which is being loaned to it.
I asked in Committee if one vital piece of information could be given, and it is the sort of information which anyone negotiating a deal like this would want. That is: what is the true value of the assets of B.E.A. at any given time? It owns very substantial leaseholds and freeholds, and the Government, in the 1967 Companies Act, decided in their wisdom that joint stock companies should reveal any major variations between true values and those shown in the accounts. Anyone negotiating a deal such as this would really want to know the true asset value of B.E.A., and I hone that the Minister will at least give us some guidance on that before the debate is over.
There is one factor which has rather amazed me this evening, and that is when the Minister said that public dividend capital is not part of the reconstruction. I accept that it is not part of the immediate reconstruction, but it is obviously the hope that this will form part of a reconstructed capital for B.E.A. at some time in the future. The basis for this was given by the Minister in the Standing Committee, when he said:
I hope that the Committee will not disparage this because morale and incentives in nationalised industries are as important as in any other field—a clear incentive to B.E.A.'s Board. It wants public dividend capital. It has been refused so far. It cannot have it for a considerable period ahead under this Bill. It knows that its total performance, the extent to which it becomes viable, is crucial to the decision on the award of public dividend capital."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 17th June, 1969; c. 84–5.]
So it appears that we have restored this evening a whole Clause to the Bill


which is only to give some form of hope to the board, to the management of B.E.A., of something which it quite easily may never have. I believe that one of the things hon. Members would have liked was a much fuller disclosure of more of the information which lies behind the deal which has been done, and which, I feel, has been brilliantly negotiated by members of B.E.A. with the Board of Trade. If we had more of this information, I feel certain that hon. Members would be much happier to endorse the Bill.

11.14 p.m.

Mr. Ridley: I hope that this is the last of such Bills which we will have before us. I think it impossible to calculate what the correct amount of capital write-off should be, and that it puts the House in an impossible position to be asked to write off sums of money for reasons such as this.
I know that it is a great advance in thinking on nationalised industries that we should identify the uneconomic content of what they are required to do, and pay for it separately. That is a principle to which I entirely subscribe, but with respect, I do not believe that it has been followed on this occasion.
The uneconomic content is the uneconomic production of uneconomic aircraft, and the way to deal with that is to subsidise the aircraft we make so that they are generally saleable around the world, including to B.E.A.
In future, the right policy for the country will be to trade in the world as a whole, to design aircraft for the world as a whole and to sell them in the world as a whole and perhaps—who knows?—to subsidise them, and I am not saying that we should not. The wrong policy is to require B.E.A. to place a specific order for an aircraft which suits only it and then to subsidise B.E.A. so that the cost of this tailor-made aircraft can be brought down to suit the Corporation.
We will never know the uneconomic element of the cost of this aircraft. We do not know what the growth of world air traffic is to be and we do not know what share of it B.E.A. will be able to maintain. We do not know how long this aircraft will last, or how much it will lose per annum compared with comparable aircraft which B.E.A. would buy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Donald Williams) believes that the Board of Trade has been taken for a ride by B.E.A. He may be right. There is nobody in the House who can say what will be the outcome of this financial deal in 20 years' time. It is, therefore, wrong for us to subsidise B.E.A. to a specific amount resulting from this particular deal.
For those reasons, I hope that this will be the last such Bill coming before the House. If the Government wish to encourage the aircraft industry, let them aid and supplement its revenues directly and let them tell B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. to buy their aircraft on the world market and to buy aircraft which suit them most. What we lost in foreign exchange on the latter transaction we should gain by selling our aircraft world wide.
There is one last regrettable consequence. It looks as though tonight the House is passing a Bill to subsidise B.E.A. It has had enough of the taxpayers' money in the past, but to be fair we must admit that this is not money to subsidise B.E.A. It is money to subsidise the aircraft industry, because if it had not been for the high cost of the aircraft which B.E.A. was forced to buy. presumably it would have asked for this money. So we have made it look as though B.E.A. needs bailing out when it is not B.E.A. but the aircraft makers themselves. This is a point of presentation. It is a bad piece of public relations for all concerned.
This has been a sorry little episode. It has been badly handled and it has arisen out of bad policy. I hope that the lessons from it have been learned. It has cost the taxpayer £37½ million, which is chickenfeed compared with what the Government are used to devouring, but I am not complaining about that at present. I hope that the lesson has been learned—that this is not the right way in which to run an aircraft industry or an airline. If we can buy that piece of knowledge for £37½ million, I for one will be content to give the Bill its Third Reading.

11.19 p.m.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Throughout our debates on this Bill there has been a


slight air of unreality. As is made clear in Clause 1 of the Bill, the Act was due to come into effect on 1st April, 1968, rather more than a year ago. There is thus an onus on us all to pass the Bill, because B.E.A. may already be operating on the assumption that it will get the money.
The basis for the Bill, as we have heard so often, is the fact that B.E.A. cannot have an aircraft of its wishes and must be compensated for having aircraft which it cannot get until 1971. That aircraft is a new British aircraft, the Trident 3. In view of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), it is only fair to say that this will be a good aeroplane. There is no reason to suppose that it will be otherwise, but it will be late, and B.E.A. clearly has a case for compensation.
As we know, B.E.A. wanted the Boeing 727, but was told that it could not have it. But all the way through, and this is crucial, there has been an assumption of loss of profitability because B.E.A. cannot have the Boeing now and is to have the Trident later. That is a curious way in which to approach compensation.
B.E.A. argues that its forward planning allowed for the Boeing and, in turn, that allowed it a measure of profitability. But how could it know? Forward planning is not an exact science. It is a science of ifs, buts and possibles. Therefore, to make this assumption and ask for this amount of compensation implies a measure of accuracy in forward planning which B.E.A. does not possess.
I would prefer to think that B.E.A. might have chosen to make the best of a bad job. Denied the aircraft of its choice, why could it not have soldiered on with what it has? I understand that it has notched up considerable profits for this year. Why could it not have gone on to 1971, seen how matters stood, and then worked out the compensation? B.E.A. was aggrieved by the decision not to be allowed to buy the aircraft that it wanted, but I cannot believe that £25 million plus a possible £12½ million extra is the right way to get competitiveness into the airline or give it that measure of incentive which will make it more efficient.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury that it is to be hoped this will be the last Bill of its kind to be put before the House. What is needed now is for the State airlines to be made to be as commercially viable as possible. They should not be compensated by Governments merely to bolster their balance sheets on problematic forward planning.

11.22 p.m.

Mr. Dobson: It would be unfortunate if there were not a small welcome given to the Bill from the back benches on this side of the House. We have listened to several speeches from hon. Gentlemen opposite which have expressed their grudging support, if not their outright opposition to the Bill.
I take the view, with a number of my hon. Friends, that the terms agreed by the Board of Trade with B.E.A. were rather generous. However, there are escape Clauses in regard to the second tranche, which means that the Government have not over-committed themselves to meet B.E.A.'s desire for compensation.
It is right that B.E.A. should be compensated, and the Bill is necessary to make good the pledges given by the Government when they decided to force B.E.A. to buy British aircraft. The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) has said twice that, as a result we shall be subsidising the aircraft manufacturers. We are, of course, and he knows that we are. A lot of money goes directly into the pockets of the aircraft manufacturers.
We are dealing here with an attempt to assess as fairly as possible the loss caused to B.E.A. by the late delivery of aircraft which it did not want because it failed to meet its technical specifications. That does not mean that the Trident 3 is a bad aircraft. It is not. If it had been, B.E.A. would not have taken it and we would not have had this Bill.
While hon. Members on this side have some reservations about the total amount involved, they do not invalidate our view that it was right to honour the pledges of my right hon. Friend and his predecessors to recompense B.E.A. for its purchases of a very good British aircraft.

11.25 p.m.

Mr. Corfield: The first comment that I should like to make, without too much repetition, is that the Edwards Committee will compel the Government to legislate when there was no necessity to look ahead at all in relation to the £12½ million or to the public dividend capital.
However that may be, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Donald Williams) has said, this is a Bill basically to compensate B.E.A. for being prevented from having the aircraft of its choice. It is not being made to take a second-rate aircraft; it is being compensated largely for the delay in having an aircraft coming into service which the decision of the Government, with which we all agree, involved.
We should remember that had B.E.A., in the early days, not put so much influence on Hawker-Siddeley to reduce the specification of the Trident I, it would have been almost exactly the same aircraft, from an operational point of view, as the Boeing 737 which B.E.A. wished to buy. I suppose that we could make an argument for B.E.A. paying compensation to Hawkers, but that is for another occasion.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) that in future the aircraft manufacturers—and I think they all recognise this—will have to aim at world markets. If they are successful, and a particular aircraft does not quite fit B.E.A., we shall be able to afford, on the export results of our world-beating aircraft, either to let it buy the foreigner or certainly to subsidise the cost of the British aircraft rather than on this basis of vague calculations on the difference in operating costs and the costs of delay and all the rest.
It is a great pity—and we must face this in future—that we have been told throughout that it is not in the commercial interests of B.E.A. that we should know the basis of this calculation. We were told the same over the £30 million which was given to B.O.A.C. in relation to the VC10. Yet there is a good deal of evidence—at the least strong suggestion, if not evidence—that the load factor on the VC10 has enabled it to produce probably a 10 per cent. higher load factor than the Boeing 707. As Flight this week puts it, a 5 per cent. load

factor above the break-even point over the 10 years of operation would be £25 million, which would amply have covered the extra cost of operation.
There is a strong case here, as my hon. Friend the Member for Waltham-stow, East (Mr. McNair-Wilson) said, for ex post facto checking of the sums. We have at last moved to a situation, in regard to Government contracts to the aircraft industry, where, under certain circumstances, it is fair to do some post costing. It seems odd that the Government have not applied this principle to the airlines where the problems of forecasting and estimating are every bit as formidable as in the manufacturing industries, although for entirely different reasons.
I hope that the airlines will face up to the fact that one of the things that most impressed me, and, I gather, reading between the lines, most impressed the Edwards Committee when visiting the C.A.B. in Washington, was that all these figures, and more, are available very quickly after the event. About six weeks after the financial returns per month are in, they are available on payment of a modest sum. They are broken down to show the operating costs of every particular aircraft on every particular route.
I hope that the airlines, whether B.E.A. or B.O.A.C., will realise that if I ever have anything to do with it, these figures will be published. I do not believe that they harm the commercial interests of the aircraft industry. I believe that the lesson of America is that they sharpen competition and are immensely valuable to the market research of the aircraft industry in finding the right slots in the market. So it is high time that B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. grew up and grew away from the idea of secrecy and all the rest. It is public money. They are accountable to this House. We should be told how the sums are done and they should be checked after the event.
We on this side recognise the achievements of B.E.A. It probably has a more difficult task than most airlines because, alone of countries, we divide our two airlines horizontally, with the short haul in one airline and the long haul in the other. With B.E.A. operating on an average fare of £10, I think that it does remarkably well. But that is not to say


that we ought to be complacent. We ought to look at these things carefully before we pass them. We wish B.E.A. well. We only regret that it has even to be suggested that the compensation is needed in relation to a British aircraft, instead of an American one.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. William Rodgers: With the leave of the House, perhaps I might say a few words at the end of our debate.
Nothing that has been said this evening, or that was said in Committee, makes me believe that the principle embodied in the Bill is wrong, or that the figures for compensation are wrong, given the real difficulties in forecasting. I agree with what has been said, that we should make our techniques more refined in this respect. I also want to make clear that in general I am in favour of the disclosure of an increasing amount of information, though the rule which we apply to the corporation should be applied to the civil aviation industry as a whole. Secrecy is the enemy of wise decisions at all times, and I hope that we shall move increasingly in the direction of knowing a good deal more about why decisions have been made.
Perhaps I might add, in passing, that hon. Members who were on the Committee will remember the discussion on the question of B.E.A.'s accounts. I then said that I would be in touch with Sir Anthony Millward and convey to him that the Committee wished to urge him and his board to move in the direction of increasing disclosure, except—and I think that this remains so, though the circumstances must be minimal—when real commercial confidentiality is at stake.
Hon. Members will be glad to know that Sir Anthony has readily responded to this approach, and despite the fact that the accounts for 1968–69 were already in an advanced state of preparation B.E.A. has undertaken to incorporate additional material. For that reason I think that when the accounts are published they will contain some of the information for which hon. Members were asking. But if they do fall short of what can reasonably be required of B.E.A., no doubt further representations will be made to my right hon. Friend and to myself, and I am sure that we shall look at them

sympathetically. The principle is, I think, established. The only question is how fast we can move.
On the question of the basis of the calculations embodied in the Bill, attempted in Committee to give as much information as I thought I could. I do not think that this is the time, at 11.30 p.m., to try to produce more detailed information. If an occasion arises I shall certainly do so. I make only one point again, that a large part of these calculations concerns an aircraft of which there is as yet little or no experience. As I said in Committee, the Trident 3B will not fly until December, and to that extent the calculations were a matter of judgment, though I think I can say that B.E.A. took at valuation the manufacturers' own view of the performance of the aircraft.

Mr. Ridley: Does the hon. Gentleman think that it might be a good idea, in five years' time, to go into actual determined operating costs and check with the estimates to see whether we have provided too much or too little, just to square it up?

Mr. Rodgers: I have a good deal of sympathy with the suggestion. Quite frankly, it seems that a lot could be said for doing that exercise on the VCIO, because, for the reasons which have been mentioned this evening, it is desirable that we should know. The fact that the calculations may turn out to be right or wrong does not invalidate the argument for having made the judgment this way. In every commercial undertaking one can be right sometimes, and wrong sometimes. The important thing is to be right more often than wrong. We should get away from the situation in which we cannot examine the past for fear of what it may reveal. That is not a good way of making decisions, though here I should apply the same rule to the private as to the public sector.
The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Donald Williams) mentioned two matters. I have dealt with the first, the general one about disclosure. The other was about the valuation of assets. I understand that there are three bases of revaluation used by the commercial world. First, the estimated costs of replacing assets. Second, the estimated price they would realise if sold. Third, the assessed


value based on their earning power on a "good concern" basis.
I have tried to apply all these three methods to B.E.A., given that revaluation generally occurs only on change of ownership, takeover or public flotation, I have not found a means by which these could profitably be applied to B.E.A.'s assets. If, however, the hon. Member has some other course in mind, if he writes to me I will certainly examine it.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue) drew attention to something to which he drew attention in Committee. I am not, I think, in disput with what he said or not with the larger part of it. The hon. Member has tried to make clear that the figure is, perhaps, slightly larger than might appear at first sight. As I said in Committee, however, our decisions were made on the basis that the hon. Member has in mind and, therefore, there is no reason to change them.
I was delighted, as I always am, by the warm friendship of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Dobson), who believes that it is a good Bill. That must be the verdict.
I am glad also that the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) said that he wished B.E.A. well. That is a sentiment which has prevailed throughout all our discussions. We wish B.E.A. well and we hope that the Bill will be a basis upon which its fortunes will increasingly improve.

Mr. Corfield: I should like to make it clear that in suggesting a post-costing of the VC10, I am not interested in finding out that somebody has made a mistake, which is bound to happen from time to time. I am interested to know, and the purpose is to assess, the true value of this aircraft. It could have made a lot of difference to the sale of the aircraft had we had that information.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

DOCTORS (DISPENSING)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]

11.36 p.m.

Mr. Tim Fortescue: In the short time that I have been privileged to be a Member of the House, nothing has made a stronger impression on me than the ordinary back-bencher's right and opportunity to demand the presence of a Minister at the Despatch Box to tell him of an apparent injustice to the humblest constituent and to be quite certain that the matter will be investigated promptly, closely and objectively.
To me, it is this right and opportunity which is at the heart of our democracy when quietly, in an almost empty Chamber, late at night, the elected representative of the people brings a grievance from the people to the Executive and is certain not only of a hearing but of investigation and justice. In most countries this would be unimaginable. In ours it is, perhaps, more valuable than all our noisy set-piece debates so passionately engaged under the eyes of the world.
Tonight I bring before the House a sense of injustice burnt deep into the minds not of one constituent but of 20,000 pharmacists, who are constituents of every hon. Member in England and Wales, although not in Scotland, where the Regulations of which I complain do not apply and, therefore, there is no sense of injustice.
The facts are familiar and are not in dispute. Briefly, the National Health Service Act, 1946, provides that except as provided by Regulations, medicines shall be dispensed only by registered pharmacists or authorised sellers of poisons or under their direct supervision. The exception to this is set out in Regulation 27 of the National Health Service (General Medical and Pharmaceutical) Regulations, 1966, the essence of which has appeared in all corresponding Regulations since those made under the original National Insurance Act, 1911.
The Regulations provide that doctors may dispense medicines for patients living more than one mile from a pharmacy and were designed for an age when rural


transport was difficult and primitive. This one-mile rule has long been recognised as obsolete. This recognition led in 1966 to negotiations being opened between the Ministry of Health, as it then was, the British Medical Association, the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain and the Central National Health Service (Chemist Contractors) Committee. After nearly three years, those negotiations led to a draft unanimous agreement that the Regulations should be amended.
Under the amended Regulations the rural doctor, instead of dispensing for patients living more than one mile from a pharmacy, was in future to dispense only for those who otherwise, because of distance or inadequate communications, would have difficulty in obtaining their medicines. In each executive council area there was to be a committee, chaired by a layman and consisting of three doctors, three pharmacists and two other lay people to watch over the public interest and to decide which patients should have their medicines dispensed by their doctors.
This agreement was described by the then Minister of Health, the present Minister for Planning and Land, as
fair to all parties—patients, doctors and pharmacists".
He added,
In principle, patients' interests generally would be better served if their dispensing was done by a competent and well-stocked pharmacist rather than by an over-worked doctor; few doctors could provide as wide a range of drugs as the average pharmacy, or have the turnover to ensure freshness and quality; and it could hardly be in the patient's best interests if the doctor's judgment about treatment might be coloured by the drugs he happens to have in stock.
It seemed that at last the Regulations were to be brought into line with the needs of the seventh rather than the second decade of this century.
But two things then happened: first, responsibility for health was taken over by the present Secretary of State for Social Services, and, secondly, the rural dispensing doctors—that is, those doctors who were dispensing their own medicines in rural areas—refused to ratify the agreement so painstakingly argued and reached by their own negotiators from the British Medical Association.
The present Secretary of State examined the position anew, and on 23rd April this year he told a deputation of pharmacists

that, faced with a difficult choice between imposing a change without the agreement of one of the professions or maintaining the status quo,
with some reluctance have concluded that I should do the latter. The substance of the present Regulations will stand.
He added that he regarded
as a regrettable development
the fact that the medical profession as a whole were not prepared to ratify the agreement, and that he would be ready to reopen negotiations on any alternative proposals on which there was a prospect of reaching agreement between the two professions. He repeated that assurance to me at Question time on 30th June.
But the Secretary of State must appreciate that that assurance is entirely futile. His predecessor was party to a draft agreement which he described as being in the best interests of patients, for whom he was at that time trustee in these matters. A small minority group of one of the professions concerned then deliberately obstructed the ratification of that agreement, putting their own interests before those of their patients. The present Secretary of State then, in his own words, "with reluctance" surrendered to that minority, in spite of the "regrettable" nature of their action, and left them undisputed masters of the field. How can he possibly suppose that they would be prepared to accept freely alternative proposals which might give them less than the complete victory which they had already gained.
It is as if a High Court judge, hearing counsel for two litigants, had agreed with them both that a given solution was fair and just; and then one of the counsel went back to him and said that his client did not agree; and the judge, instead of handing down the judgment which he had already agreed as being the proper judgment, said that he could take no further action until the litigants had agreed among themselves. That is an apparently judicious attitude, but in fact it is an abdication of responsibility and an admission of impotence.
From where does the Secretary of State obtain this doctrine that the Government cannot or must not amend regulations, however equitable the amendments, unless all parties concerned agree? Would it be fair to suggest that this doctrine came from the same book as that which


the Prime Minister had before him when he abandoned his promised industrial relations legislation in order to please the T.U.C.? Where now is the proud precept that the task of the Government is to govern?
Why is the Secretary of State content to allow prescriptions to be dispensed by rural doctors whose pharmacological knowledge is rudimentary and who often, apparently legally under present regulations, delegate this work to their completely unqualified and unsupervised wives, secretaries, receptionists, or, in cases which I have documented, even gardeners and handymen, rather than by pharmacists qualified after three years' training whose work is constantly and precisely supervised by the Pharmaceutical Society's visiting inspectors?
I have with me letters showing many examples of the malpractices of doctors in this respect, and I will gladly let the Secretary of State have them if he desires. I remind him that under the one-mile rule a doctor may dispense only if a patient asks him to do so. I suggest, however, that in nearly all instances this regulation is broken by the doctor giving the patient no choice. Of the many letters I have received, I will quote from only two. A pharmacist in Yorkshire writes:
This week a patient complained that she had to go each week to get her insulin from the doctors surgery, and on one occasion she had been told that she would have to wait until Monday before she could have any more tablets. She asked if she could in future obtain her insulin from the chemist, as she had done in the past, and was told that she could not.
A Bodmin, Cornwall, pharmacist writes:
One of my girl assistants attended two months ago with a sore throat. The doctor gave her a prescription for Prodosol, but the girl receptionist refused to let her bring it back for dispensing and insisted on supplying it. But the surgery was out of stock and the girl receptionist, without consultation with the prescriber, substituted a completely different product.
These instances are entirely in breach of the regulations and are firm proof that the regulations need to be changed.
In the extreme case—I would not say that this has happened, but it could, in theory, happen—if a patient were to die because of a drug wrongly dispensed or inadequately labelled by a doctor, that doctor would sign the death certificate. That doctors make mistakes is evidenced

by the sizeable number of occasions—two or three a day in one large hospital—on which pharmacists check with prescribing doctors about apparent errors in prescriptions, and the errors are admitted.
I will give only one example of this. In the journal G.P. for 27th June, 1969—a journal for general practitioners—a pharmacist writes—and supports with a photograph of the bottle involved—of a doctor who dispensed three entirely different kinds of tablet, with different dosages, in the same bottle, for a patient suffering from mental disturbance. The House will be aware of enough cases of deaths from an overdose of drugs in a state of mental confusion without wishing an additional hazard to be introduced. Such behaviour would be unthinkable in a professional pharmacist, and, if discovered, would mean his disqualification.
There are two arguments in favour of rural doctors continuing to do their own dispensing. The first is that in some cases it will be in the interest of the patient, and these cases are fully covered by the agreement reached by the negotiators—and rejected by the rural doctors—which stipulated that the latter should dispense for those
…who otherwise, because of distance or inadequate communications, would have difficulty in obtaining their medicines.
The second is that the incomes and pensions—half a doctor's income from dispensing counts towards his superannuation—of rural doctors would otherwise be reduced. But where is the justice of increasing the incomes of rural doctors by reducing the incomes of rural pharmacists?
Against these arguments I place not only those I have adduced tonight, but also the fact that the one-mile rule is being cynically and deliberately abused by many rural doctors. It was intended for the convenience of the patient in certain circumstances. It was never intended to enable the doctor to dispense for a patient living more than one mile from the pharmacist when that patient lives at some distance from the doctor.
I can quote numerous instances of a doctor's surgery being within a few yards of a pharmacist, but the doctor insisting on doing his own dispensing under cover of the one-mile rule. Losses of income to the pharmacists concerned are calculated variously at between £800


and £1,500 a year, and I have here a pathetic letter from a pharmacist's wife who tells me how overnight, when the doctor opposite started dispensing his own prescriptions, her husband saw his whole business disappearing out of the window.
Inevitably, villages and small towns are losing their pharmacists. In 1967 and 1968, 22 localities lost their only pharmacy—nearly three times as many as the average for the preceding 13 years. And a village pharmacist is just as important a man as a village doctor.
Nearly a hundred hon. Members from all parts of the House have put their signatures to my Motion urging the right hon. Gentleman to look at this matter again, and to ensure that, whenever possible, prescriptions are dispensed by qualified pharmacists. I plead with him not to leave things as they are, wringing his hands and talking of his reluctance, and of regrettable developments. It is not the slightest use his waiting for alternative proposals acceptable to both professions—the rural doctors will see to that, though the pharmacists are most anxious to open negotiations.
If he cannot introduce amended Regulations on the lines of the agreement reached by his predecessor, let him at least explain to the House why he cannot. He never has. And let him, above all, rather than sitting back and hoping that if he ignores this crisis within the National Health Service it will go away, take the initiative by calling the two sides to the negotiating table once more, and informing them of the lines on which he considers the Regulations should be amended. Only thus will he convince the pharmacists that he has at heart the interest of the patient and, even more, a true sense of justice.

11.52 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Julian Snow): This matter involves the interests of two professions which have a vital part to play in the National Health Service, together with those of the patients for whom the Service exists. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has said in this House, the decision he was asked to reconsider was not an easy one to take.
It has been a basic principle of the National Health Service from the beginning that, normally, each profession should carry out the duties for which it was specially trained—doctors to diagnose and prescribe and pharmacists to dispense—and this was recognised in Section 39 of the original Act of 1946. But this Act allowed for exceptions; and I do not think that very many people would dispute the need for exceptions to be made.
Under paragraph 7(9)(a) of the Doctors' Terms of Service (Part I of Schedule 1 to the General Medical and Pharmaceutical Services Regulation 1966), for example, all doctors are required to supply to a patient such drugs and appliances as are required for immediate administration or application or for use before a supply can be obtained otherwise—that is, through a chemist.
Besides this emergency provision, there is a clear need to protect the interests of patients who could not reasonably be expected to obtain their medicines from chemists because there is no pharmacy reasonably accessible. As so often happens, the difficulty arises in drawing the line; a flexible criterion may lead to subjective judgments, an objective criterion to arbitrary ones.
The present rule is contained in the General Medical and Pharmaceutical Services Regulations of 1966, Regulation 27, but it is in substance of much longer standing and dates back to 1911. I think that it is common ground that anomalies can arise under the present arrangements although, by and large, patients have found them satisfactory.
Under these arrangements, any patient who lives in a rural area and over a mile from a chemist's shop may ask—and, I repeat, may ask—his doctor to supply him with medicines. So, too, may any individual patient who does not satisfy these criteria but can, under Regulation 27(1)(a), show his National Health Service Executive Council that he would have serious difficulty in obtaining medicines from a chemist because of distance or inadequate communication. In certain circumstances, a doctor may be required to dispense for such patients, but even if the criteria are satisfied the ultimate decision rests with the patient himself. If he finds it more convenient to obtain


his medicines from a chemist and prefers to do so, the option is entirely his.
This is the second time the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue) has raised this matter. I read his speech on 25th March on the Consolidated Fund Bill and I admire his persistence. On that occasion my hon. Friend the Minister of State gave examples of some of the anomalies which could arise. In general they tend to arise directly or indirectly from the rigidity of the one-mile rule. For example, a dispensing doctor with whom the National Health Service Executive Council arranged that he shall supply his patients with medicines, even one who has been required to dispense for certain of his patients, loses the right to do so when a newly opened chemist's shop brings these patients within one mile of it. Again, a dispensing doctor's patient may actually pass the pharmacy on his way home from surgery.
As I have indicated, these difficulties represent the price which one has to pay for a line drawn objectively. But even the examples I have quoted are not also necessarily anomalous; a doctor is rarely required to supply his patients with medicines unless he is already a dispensing doctor; and if the patient who passes the pharmacy would have to get off the 'bus and wait hours for the next one, the fact that there is a chemist's shop between his home and the surgery loses some of its relevance.
Both doctors and pharmacists are affected by the difficulties which can arise, however, and for that reason they both have an interest in considering how far it would be desirable and practicable to amend the present arrangements. Separate consultations with the two professions were initiated following the discussions over the Doctors' Charter in 1965 and as a result it was possible to draw up proposals as a basis for an agreement with the two professions and these were set out in the Third Report of the Joint Discussions of the Family Doctor Service.
The proposals were slightly amended during subsequent negotiations but the basic principles throughout were the replacement of the "one-mile" rule by the criterion of serious difficulty and the protection of a doctor's right—once it had

been granted under the new arrangements—to continue dispensing for his patients as long as he remained in the same practice and unless there were a major change of circumstances arising from a significant increase in population. The task of deciding whether "serious difficulty" would arise for the patient was to be given to a dispensing committee on which were represented both professions together with laymen to represent the interest of patients.
The pharmaceutical profession have substantially endorsed what their negotiators agreed; and at one time there seemed to be every hope that the medical profession also would agree. In the event, however, the medical profession as a whole felt unable to ratify the proposals to which their negotiators had agreed. Such is democracy.
As I have explained the two professions were not negotiating together; the proposals were agreed during parallel discussion with the Department. The pharmaceutical profession endorsed what their negotiators had agreed; and I can readily understand their disappointment that the medical profession did not do likewise. The rejection of the proposals by the medical profession as a whole was not foreseen by anyone engaged in the discussions in 1966. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State concluded that it created new circumstances; and for this reason he decided reluctantly, as he has already explained to the House, that the proposals I have described should not at present be introduced; this decision applies to both a change in the one-mile rule and the proposals which had been designed to resolve difficulties which can arise for doctors under the present arrangements.
At the same time my right hon. Friend has expressed to both professions, for example in the letters he wrote to inform them of his decision on 25th April, the hope that it would in due course be possible, as a result of changes in the view currently held by the profession, to put the proposals into effect, and he has on more than one occasion stated his willingness to reopen negotiations on any alternative proposals which offer the prospect of being agreed by both professions. In coming to his decision that there was no case for imposing the proposals on the medical profession against


their wishes, my right hon. Friend bore in mind the lack of any real evidence that this change was desired by the patients concerned. It is also the case that the work of implementing the unratified proposals properly would have demanded the willing co-operation of both professions.
There have been suggestions that the existing arrangements are not being properly carried out. Could the hon. Gentleman give some examples of what sounded to me rather like abuses of the arrangements? If the hon. Gentleman will give me evidence in writing, I shall have the matters investigated. Naturally, we should be prepared to examine any such evidence.
It has been claimed that doctors have been taking more patients away from the rural pharmacist. Naturally, there are movements one way or the other all the time, and one tends to notice those which affect one's own position most; but, over the last few years, there has been no increase in the number of dispensing doctors. I think that the contrary impression has arisen from information about the numbers of prescriptions dispensed by doctors, but these can relate only to medicines supplied by doctors who have elected to be paid on the basis of the Drug Tariff, that is to say, who are paid according to the medicines actually supplied, on a similar basis to that applying to chemists, as distinct from those who receive set capitation fees for their dispensing according to the numbers of patients on their lists. Doctors paid by capitation fee have in recent years tended to elect to change the basis of their remuneration. In 1964, for example, there were 1,656 such doctors as compared with 918 paid under the Drug Tariff. In 1968, the respective figures were 1,267 and 1,222. Since there was a substantial increase in the numbers of dispensing doctors paid on a Drug Tariff basis, and in any case the total numbers of prescriptions issued by all doctors have tended to increase, the figures are not comparable.
The Department remains prepared to consider sympathetically any alternative proposals offering the chance of a genuine agreement, and any suggestions to improve the arrangements under the existing regulations would be considered sympathetically. I very much hope that these two great professions, which to a large

extent have common interests, might be able to formulate, or re-formulate, some proposals which have a prospect of general acceptance.
The hon. Gentleman cited what sounded to me like cases of abuse. He is a fair man. I am sure that he will agree that he was speaking on behalf of the chemists affected—I do not complain about that—and the discussion would be incomplete unless we had a comparable speech from the doctors' point of view.

Dr. M. P. Winstanley: Before leaving the question of the advisability or otherwise of the general practitioner dispensing in any circumstances, will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that in private general practice, which has the enthusiastic support of the Conservative Party, it is normal practice for the general practitioner to dispense?

Mr. Snow: I am not certain that that is an entirely accurate formulation of Conservative Party policy, which is not always easy to understand, but I take the point which the hon. Gentleman makes.

Mr. Fortescue: I made two further points to which the Under-Secretary of State has not fully replied. First, he said that there was no evidence that what I proposed is desired by patients. The previous Minister of Health said that the proposal which I am supporting was in the best interest of patients. What has happened to make the new Minister change his mind? Second, what proposals does the Secretary of State expect to find acceptable to both the professions when it is obvious that a militant minority of one of the professions has deliberately and successfully obstructed agreement on proposals which were acceptable to the representatives of the entire medical profession?

Mr. Snow: The test which my right hon. Friend has used has been that, so far as we can trace, there have been no serious representations by patients against a change such as the hon. Gentleman is formulating. But there is still time for there to be a modification of view on both sides. I leave the matter at that for the moment, because I hope that, sooner or later, we shall have an agreement on this matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at four minutes past twelve o'clock.